Good movie, great cast and interesting plot.
A movies as they used to be when interesting thrillers were on the screens with higher frequency.

OK, so perhaps this didn't really need a "reimagining" but it's still quite good fun. Anton Yeltsin ("Charley") lives with this mum "Jane" (Toni Collette) when the charming "Jerry" (Colin Farrell) moves in next door. "Charley" is immune to his charms, though, and after some mysterious goings-on begins to suspect that his new neighbour is never going to be able to use a sun-lamp. Of course nobody believes him, so he searches out the supposed vampire killer "Peter" (an on-form David Tennant). Things really hot up when he discovers that the love of his life "Amy" (Imogen Potts) is target number one, so he must use all the holy relics, guile and sheer brass neck he can to try to thwart this powerful and ancient menace. Just about everyone here has their tongue in their cheek, the story moves along entertainingly and the stars - especially a wonderfully hammy Farrell are clearly enjoying this too. The visual effects won't blow you away, but they are effective enough and of course, well you just know that right will triumph. It's teen brain fodder, nothing more, but I still quite enjoyed it.

I have to admit that I have not seen the original but from this version of Fright Night I must say that I do not understand all the fuss and why it has become somewhat of a cult classic. I give 6 stars out of 10 and that is quite frankly just barely. If someone had told me that this was a high-budget TV-movie I would not have been very surprised. Maybe it felt more fresh in 1985 when the original came out.
The first part of the movie is actually a bit boring. However, after the vampire finally reveals himself so that Charlie’s girlfriend and mother starts to believe him things starts to pick up pace a bit. Unfortunately a lot of the movie is still somewhat mediocre. There are the usual frustrating moments, which Hollywood seems to believe must be in every movie, where Charlie just stupidly stands and stares wasting time, drops his weapon etc. etc.
The special effects are okayish but never great. The “vampire hunter” Peter Vincent is just a jerk most of the time until the very end when he shapes up a bit.
It is a decent enough evening diversion but as I wrote, as far as I am concerned, it gets an “okay” but just barely.

Quite a decent teen horror movie. Maybe it lacks some jokes and the story, as always, is quite stereotypical, but the formula works well.
Yelchin, Farrel, Tennant and Poots make a good team.

There's something quite fascinating about the recuperative ability of the land to recover from centuries of man's abuse displayed in this documentary. Isabella Tree and husband Charlie have inherited a country estate that can barely manage to grow weeds. The soil is knackered and desperate action is required. They hit on the fairly radical idea of abandoning the place to nature (except their front lawn!) and the film now follows the reclamation of this space by birds, bugs, deer, pigs, cattle - creatures that would have roamed the land freely a few hundred years ago. They even bring in storks! It's a stunning piece of photography to look at, but the underlying narrative is really quite weak and I found it allowed sentiment to overrule the one thing it fails to address - scalability. They live in a castle with no evident money worries. None that we are told about, anyway. So this looks like a worthy pet project that though laudable and impressive will, as one of their neighbours raises at a meeting, not feed the nation. When the vast majority of these complementary farming techniques were in use, the population of the UK was probably less than 10% of what it is now; malnutrition and starvation were rife and distribution methods, without refrigeration, left the food supply subject to the vagaries of the weather. What this doesn't address in any way is just how this method of nurturing the land is going to provide for an hungry population. It's largely presented by Isabella Tree herself, and she is an engaging individual but one who presents the most complex of arguments in far too simple a fashion - as if it were a lecture on the relative merits of organic methods without addressing in any way their limitations of their practicalities or economics. "Duncan" the horse and a few of the pigs have some great fun at a charity polo match and it is a very watchable film - but a little too light and fluffy.

The Balconettes is like a chaotic but fun house party; you never know what will happen next, and you're wondering if the host even knows what kind of party it is. It bounces between genres like it's on a trampoline. While some might prefer to pick a lane, the unpredictable fun keeps you entertained. Weighty themes are tackled head-on, though the film occasionally looks like it's doing the thinking equivalent of spinning plates.
Packed with cheeky humour, sudden scares, and more nudity than you'd expect, it delivers a smorgasbord of boobs and vaginas in everything from sexy to clinical to victorious settings. Yes, the body parts are essential to the plot, so don't overthink it—just roll with it. The film is a glorious mess, but it's the mess that makes you go, "Wait, did I just have a great time?" Spoiler: You did.
Oh, and to those men in their fifties who walked out when the messaging about consent got challenging... get a life.

Recently widowed and facing the loss of her home, the eponymous woman (Shahana Goswami) is offered a chance to take over her late husband's job as a police officer. Having basically inherited his post without any training, her first task is to work with the no-nonsense "Insp. Sharma" (Sunita Rajwar) on an horrific case in which a young girl has been brutally raped and unceremoniously dumped in a fairly lawless area of Northern India. Disgusted by the crime and by the societal attitudes of many of those the investigations touches - who mostly couldn't care less - we alight on a candidate for the crime and what ensues tests not just her mettle as a police officer but her own morals as the methods of interrogation employed by her new boss are not exactly court-ordered. That's the potent thrust of this film for me, and I didn't find that to sit so easily. The atrocity of the crime is symptomatic of cultural attitudes amidst a society where women are little better than chattels to be used and disposed of by men as required. The question of ethics starts to loom large, though, when the suspect is treated with a brutality that asks whether two wrongs make a right. It's a sort of vigilante justice that pays scant, if any, regard for due process and begs huge questions which are addressed quite poignantly at the very denouement of this quite harrowing and thought-provoking drama. The acting itself is all adequate enough but I thought Goswani relied too much on long pauses and silences to convey the sense of conflict faced by her character as the plot developed. She's not helped by the staccato writing that can hit some potent notes at times, but for the most part seems content to let what we are seeing do the work - and that left me feeling a little uneasy about the retributive elements of the drama. There's no doubt that it does provoke a conversation about women's rights in India and about their appalling position within a male-dominated hierarchy, but is throwing the rule of law under the police bus the answer?

A love story, but make it hate itself. Don’t get me wrong, Yeun and Stewart are great, absolutely great actors and gave a good performance in this, but I really couldn’t get into it. So depressing and just bleh, definitely my biggest Sundance disappointment.

16 Blocks is an incredibly atmospheric movie with some quite incredibly done street scenes. Its intensity draws you in and makes you quickly form strong opinions of each character. I initially considered Mos Def's character to be annoying, but after a number of watches I realised if he hadn't given his character so much character then he would have been inconsequential and that would have weakened the movie severely. I think Bruce Willis was very brave to take the part of Jack Mosley and commit to it in the way he did. He makes this film what it is.

Iffy at times, but '16 Blocks' produces a fine enough thriller - one that I can say I enjoyed.
Bruce Willis and Mos Def double up well as Jack and Eddie. I particularly like Willis' look for the majority of the film, he genuinely looks how his character supposedly is - good acting, but also some nice make-up etc.
Mos Def is solid, I remember liking him when he appeared on 'Dexter' - I rate him less here, just because of the annoying voice he has; which grates hard at times. Speaking of that Showtime television show, Angel Batista himself (David Zayas) also appears which is cool. David Morse, meanwhile, makes for an OK villain - the casting perhaps could've been greater for the antagonist, mind.
None of the plot is all that shocking or surprising, every crossroad that appears is pretty simple to predict where it's heading. Also, maybe I'm the only one who felt this, but there's one moment on a bus where it seems as if Jack is about to unleash some unbelievable secret plan but it just fizzles out into oddly nothing. Might be just me.
All in all though, I reckon you'll be able to find a satisfactory 105 minutes with this - I did, at least.

Bad watch, won't watch again, and can't recommend.
I really couldn't believe I didn't know about this movie before. I've organized a series of Happy Madison watch parties before, but after watching it, then I know why I didn't know about ti.
Now I'm not a big fan of either Adam Sandler (though he has movies I enjoy, repeatedly) or Andy Samberg (I think he's better at creating comedy than performing it), but this was really like he was at a party with a big head and bet someone that he could make anything funny.
So, of course, the movie starts with a statutory rape case. Now, MAYBE, he was making a message out of the ridiculous double standard about whether or not the minor is male or female, but the seriousness of the situation (though flatly stated in the movie) is not conveyed properly.
Since most of the movie is about sex, and possibly alcoholism (again, the point isn't made very clearly), there is a fair amount of sex positive messaging throughout the movie, being inclusive of maturity, skin color, body type, handicapability, and open expression. However because there is a key component of adultery and incest used for humiliation and comedy, it throws any of the previous sex situations into comedy bits, which means not only the message to laugh at people in a messed up sex situation because of incest / adultery (the morality between the two directly addressed), but also statutory rape, the elderly having sex, people expressing thoughts about sex, sex with big black women as things that are comical and that you shouldn't do and should repress. And if that's a thing, then fine, but don't make a movie about it and make me think about it, and then call it a comedy.
All of that is on top of the usual thing where everyone wants to bang Adam Sandler, and then he's an alcoholic on top of it, and then we add the litany of things that happen to Andy Samberg's character, to include child neglect, and probably abuse. And it's great for a family to rectify and come to terms together, but to make a movie where they bond over Donny's awful social magic is a weird message on which to make a production.
Look, I like being able to turn off my brain and watch some silly movie, and I was ready for it, but then I go thrown into a someone else's debate about if it's okay for a high schooler to knock up his teacher, and it kind of ruined it for me.

Risible!
That's My Boy finds Adam Sandler on auto pilot, for this represents him not giving a care in the world about his fans or anyone remotely interested in watching a decent comedy. Sure this has fans, and it's not my want to chastise people's personal preferences, especially with what makes them laugh, and certainly making light of serious issues doesn't have me signing up for the next PC Brigade march, but this is pathetically played.
It was a colossal failure at the box offices, and it deserved to be. Sandler and his writer, David Caspe, blend edgy offensiveness with base juvenile comedy, throwing erection and sperm gags together with incest and statutory rape was always going to be tricky to successfully pull off, even more so when Sandler and co seem to think shouting loud makes scenes more funny. It's just that it never comes off as a funny whole, just a series of mind farts dotted alongside a potentially warm bonding between estranged father and son thread.
Next to this Little Nicky looks a masterpiece! It's a tough film for Sandler fans to defend, and I have been one in the past, but when Vanilla Ice sending himself up is a highlight then you got problems. Whilst Susan Sarandon and James Caan should look in the mirror and ask questions about appearing in this... 3/10

Came out when Jackie Chan, Jet Li or Chow Yun-fat was doing anything thrown their way in Hollywood, probably thanks to the success of the Rush Hour franchise. The Tuxedo is a middling action-comedy that never really works though you get plenty of gratuitous shots of Jennifer Love Hewitt's cleavage. Has some moments but pretty forgettable even with Chan's martial arts skills on display. **2.5/5**

Good watch, might watch again, and can recommend.
I'm not sure Jackie Chan has made a bad movie on the simple fact that almost no one can do what he does, and the flair he puts on it would keep distinct even if someone else tried to compete. Part of his charm is how humble he acts, and this movie amplifies that as he's a guy that doesn't know what he's doing and has to rely on a Tuxedo for his abilities and Jennifer Love Hewitt for basically everything else.
JLH is great in this as well, she does some action, she's funny, she does some positive messaging for women, and she act's smart. I'm not sure if this could have been a little stronger if she was an experience field agent instead of a socially awkward scientist, but I don't think it would have been nearly as charming.
The writing is structured fine, but I wish it had a little more oompf to it. The villain's plot is interesting and innovative, but I feel like they could have done a lot more with it.
All said and done, it was good, but there are probably better actions, comedies, and spy movies you could watch.

CGI manages to completely shadow Jackie Chan's talent. Why wire-fu, when he can do much better for real (as he has more than proved throw his films).

Excellent watch, would watch again, and do recommend.
For Hitchcock fans, this is sort of a spiritual successor to "Rear Window", and an excellent one.
Amy Adams is fantastic, the story is detailed and quality through and through, and the presentation is on point.
This is good enough that I'm not going to risk spoiling the movie by going on here, but this is completely worth the watch.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
www.msbreviews.com
How many times have you heard something along the lines of "oh, this film has phenomenal actors, surely it must be great"? Obviously, countless examples defend or contradict this last statement, but unfortunately, the average moviegoer often gives more credit to the cast than to the director(s) and/or writer(s). This means that when a movie is truly amazing, actors receive the best compliments even if they didn't contribute as much as the other two filmmaking roles. However, when a film turns out to be a massive disappointment, the cast rarely gets the worst commentaries.
The Woman in the Window is the perfect example of a movie that should have never created high expectations. Contrary to what people might think, this Joe Wright's film went through non-stop delays, even before the pandemic began. Netflix wasn't even the original distributor, but the general audience doesn't care about production issues. If the cast boasts some well-known, fan-favorite actors, most viewers will highly anticipate that movie without ever thinking about who's directing or writing it. It's no surprise that this adaptation of A. J. Finn's novel is a strong contender for the following year's Razzies…
From the confusing editing work (Valerio Bonelli) - probably due to the constant re-edits - to the tremendously forced dialogues, Tracy Letts' screenplay is packed with problems concerning basically every single character interaction. The overall narrative is an utter mess that never finds its footing, ending in a convoluted, nonsensical, incredibly fake-looking film. Everything feels overdramatic, extremely fictional, and emotionless. Amy Adams, Gary Oldman, Julianne Moore, and all the other popular actors struggle so much with their scripts that some of them genuinely deliver an awful caricature of themselves.
Honestly, the only reason this doesn't get my lowest grade is due to a couple of actors that actually try to make the story a little less unbearable.
Rating: D-

**Not even that bad**
_Mild spoilers:_
Four douche bags hike into the jungle, one of them Hairy Potter, and not one of them has a significant reason to do so. Immediately the viewer is rooting for the wilderness to take them out one by one, but unfortunately we don't even see that happening.
This wasted opportunity could have been so interesting, with survival action like building a shelter, cooking water, making fire, finding edible food, fighting predators, fighting each other, finding the killer, getting the girl... Instead we are presented a "true story", boring, dragged out and without a climax of any sort. Instead, we get a monkey shot off a tree, clobbered to death and eaten above a pre-made camp fire without even taking it apart. Unbelievably Hairy Potter's actor lost weight for this garbage.
Acting, camera, score, action scenes and computer generated images are all top notch. Cannot save the movie from a mediocre 2.5 stars though. If a true story is boring, get inspired. Don't just re-enact it.
28 October 2017
I am migrating my reviews from a different site which has become simply garbage. TMDB looks awesome and I look forward to be a part of it.

The Yossi Ghinsberg Survival!
Jungle is directed by Greg McLean and adapted to screenplay by Justin Monjo from the book written by Yossi Ghinsberg. It stars Daniel Radcliffe, Joel Jackson, Alex Russell and Thomas Kretschman. Music is by Johnny Klimek and cinematography by Stefan Duscio.
Film is the retelling of real incidents when in 1981 Israeli adventure Yossi Ghinsberg entered deep into the Amazon Rainforest and found hell waiting for him.
People keep doing it, these adventure types going into treacherous Mother Nature territory to explore and discover the untapped world - only to find misery, while some are never seen again. Greg McLean mixes adventure and horror perfectly, which when coming from the director of Wolf Creek and Rogue comes as no surprise. It's standard formula in narrative drive, man meets new friends in beautiful surrounds, it's all very jolly and daring, and off they go in search of wonderment.
Of course, as is often the case, these stories can sometimes end in utter distress, Ghinsberg was a very lucky fellow to come out alive and tell his amazing story, which is in turn compelling and excellently performed by the cast. As problems begin to surface, the group dynamic begins to facture, with one particular character highly dubious in motives intent. The terrain gets steadily worse, then they got to eat of course, and as bodies begin to wane, decisions on a survival course of action take precedence. Then it's over to high peril for Ghinsberg who has to try and salvage body and mind in the hope that he might somehow escape his jungle nightmare.
Once the pic turns its entire focus on Ghinsberg's solitude, things become a little repetitive and much of the chilling danger begins to ebb away. Yet we are willing him to survive, to stay hooked in as we grasp for a semblance of good news to come out of an otherwise dark tale. Clearly from Ghinsberg's perspective, the real man himself, there was a yearning to be a better man, for better or worse, but the film is a little out of focus for an in depth portrayal of Yossi, with this blend of survival horror and characterisation not quite working. That said though, this still comes as highly recommended viewing, as does further reading on the incidents featured here. For come the closing credits, as real people are shown in photos, and their actual fates written in type, you know there has been no titillation here. 7.5/10

**Jungle, is not a place for humans anymore as thousands of years ago!**
A much better, in fact, one of the best biopic about the survival in the wilderness. It is an Australian film about a young Israeli named Yossi, who went for a trekking in the Bolivian jungle with three others, but had got lost and fought for survival. It's 1981, the rainy season is just a corner away, but the four went to find a lost Indian village. After everybody got separated, the remain story told from Yossi's perspective, how he faced the nature's challenges to keep alive and make safely to the human civilisation.
The film was very good compared to what the trailer and teaser hinted out. Radcliffe is getting better with his every new film. With performance like this, surely everybody would accept him in the coming days. So we could see him in big projects, in big roles. Good writing and direction, but it was based on the biographical book of the same name. The film was entirely shot in Australia, but you can witness the real South American atmosphere. Something what bothered me was, Yossi an ex army man, so this kind of survival skills is taught in the army camps, yet he was scared and struggle like a normal person. Overall, it is a good film to go for it.
_8/10_

_Jungle_ is certainly not my worst film of 2017, but I think it might just be the most disappointing. I'm a **massive** fan of Greg McLean, and the trailer had me proper on board with _Jungle_. Unfortunately, the end result was something capable of capturing my interest only once, and for no longer than a couple of minutes.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Beautiful story that had me tearing up at multiple points. I really think each individual story is fantastic, but I was not a huge fane of the second act. I did not enjoy adding a third character into the fold. It would have been better to keep the focus on the main two. Animation is great, but I can tell they were still honing their craft as it was not as sharp as his newer work. Overall, I still really enjoyed this, the short runtime really makes this a fun digestible short with film style quality.
Score: 74% 👍
Verdict: Good

A very good action thriller.
'21 Bridges' has an excellent showing from Chadwick Boseman, everything else isn't quite up to his level though is all still very good. The support cast, which includes the likes of J. K. Simmons and Taylor Kitsch, pacing and music are my main pluses for this 2019 flick.
It's far from perfect of course, but I personally I got what I wanted from it and would happily watch it again.

Exhilarating, powerful, edge-of-your-seat.
Chadwick Boseman was amazing.
Don't get why there's a lot of negativity about this film - it was superb. Combined with a well laid out storyline, amazing cast, background music and produced by the director of Avengers Endgame!

Some neato throwback vibes in this moderately enjoyable and **very** predictable crime thriller.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Andre Davis (Chadwick Boseman) is the NYPD detective tasked with the case of two criminals who kill several police officers during a drug heist. The deaths enrage an entire precinct, and the captain (J.K. Simmons) now has a bunch of trigger-happy cops thirsting for revenge. He decides to pair Andre with a DEA agent (Sienna Miller). But the incident also uncovers a conspiracy, and Andre doesn’t know whom to trust. He has just one night to solve the case and catch the killers before they escape the city of Manhattan.
Chadwick Boseman’s rendition of Andre Davis is intense, and the actor has a commanding on-screen presence as well. He continues to display a lot of range in his acting repertoire to prove, yet again, why he deserves to be a leading man. J.K. Simmons is perfectly cast as Captain McKenna, who makes you really care about why the police deaths matter so much to him and the rest of the cops. Sienna Miller is also impressive in a restrained performance as the DEA agent Frankie Burns. On the other side of the law, Taylor Kitsch and Stephan James make a strong pair. Kitsch plays Raymond Jackson, a sharpshooter who knows how to dispatch whoever is in his sights, and James plays Michael Trujillo, the brains of the operation, who needs to figure how to escape without getting arrested.
Although the plot is neither new nor inventive in any way, it has an interesting setup with perspectives from both sides of the law. Director Brian Kirk shoots the film, particularly the action, well enough to keep the pace engaging throughout. The screenplay has the potential to explore different motivations, but the film barely scratches the surface of its subject matter. If you’re familiar with the crime thriller genre, the chances are you’ll predict the outcome because we’ve seen this story play out many times before. Despite that, you’ll still enjoy ‘21 Bridges’, because the action combined with its competent cast and their performances make it highly watchable.

Not great but still entertaining vampire movie with a fun twist at the end. I'm not usually the biggest fan of vampire films, or zombie ones for that matter (I'm more a fan of classic slashers like Halloween and Friday the 13th) but this one wasn't too bad, aside from the occasional terrible CGI blood. Also helped that the film has Willem Dafoe in it, who I wish was the central character (though Hawke was by no means bad).

"Marji" is a young girl growing up in Iran just as the imperial Pahlavi regime is toppled and the birth of the Islamic republic proclaimed. Optimism is the order of the day, with everyone hoping the new government will represent new freedoms and liberties for all. Ha! Fat chance, as they say, and things start to become a bit dangerous for this honest and outspoken girl. To avert a familial disaster, her parents manage to get her studying in Vienna, but once there she finds herself immersed in a culture that is alien to her and one that doesn't live up to her (rather naive) expectations. Now she is truly rudderless - where does she belong? Where can she belong? The animation here is quite effective. It's basic, monochrome and at times it's slightly stop-motion style illustrates well the changing politics at home and her own attitudes as she matures and becomes less and less settled. It does cram a great deal in. We move through the decades at breakneck speed which at times disappoints. There are times when I would have liked to linger a bit longer with some aspects of her development, but it's still a lively and thought-provoking watch for much of the time and is well worth a watch.

'The Guest' is a surprisingly fun throwback to 1980s horror. It boasts a thumping soundtrack and quick cuts that really fit into the theme of the film. The exaggerated scenes of violence and gore may be a bit too strange for those who do not appreciate the sentimentality and nostalgia of the movie.
The narrative is very straightforward and follows Dan Stevens, an ex-soldier, as he returns to his friend's family's house as a dying wish. He protects and helps them through their individual problems but all is not what it seems. The film does lose it's way slightly towards the end as it tries to drastically remind audiences that the film is meant to be over-the-top when it was already doing a subtly good job.
Dan Stevens is very good in the main role. From the trailer, it looked like it would be a rip-off of Nicolas Winding Refn's 'Drive' but Stevens adds a very unique coldness to his powerful persona.
★★★½

In terms of tone and pacing, _The Guest_ is a little bit all over the place.
But in terms of plot, script, narrative, acting, setting, score, soundtrack, characters, intrigue, effects, humour, rewatchability, entertainment value and originality? Yeah. Pretty much nails it.
_Final rating:★★★★ - An all round good movie with a little something extra._