The story is the same with another part. A badass fight all kungfu chinesse guys, and IP is the man finished the match. Same here, nothing new.
But I enjoy it.
I love the part Mr. IP realize that he don't listen to his son, when he see Mr. Wan argue with Yonah. People don't realize their problem in them, they just realize their problem through another person.

Really clever movie. Also very funny. I was quite impressed with this movie. I must say though if these things came to life for real, I would freak out!

‘Out of the Furnace’ tells a gripping - although somewhat predictable - story, that focuses mainly on its characters and their emotions, choices and motives. The cast here is truly exceptional, especially Bale and Harrelson, delivering real and raw performances.
8/10

Guardians of the Galaxy has solidified itself as an incredible franchise within the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Volume 1: The creation of these characters injected suspense, excitement, and a generous dose of over-the-top comedy into the MCU. Chris Pratt's portrayal of Star-Lord was a fantastic choice, and the characters like Rocket and Groot became instant fan favorites, with merchandise flying off the shelves. While Nebula's transformation from antihero to hero was well-received, Gamora felt underutilized. Drax provided comic relief, but off-screen controversies involving the actor can affect viewers' perception of the character. Overall, the movie is enjoyable and worth watching.
Volume 2: While some may prefer the first installment, Volume 2 offers a deeper dive into the characters and more excitement. The film is wonderfully executed, providing a fantastic adventure that is highly recommended for its magical space journey and character development.
Volume 3: This installment returns to the original concept of Marvel, seamlessly connecting with other films in the MCU. The movie offers fantastic character development, ensuring each character shines without overshadowing the others. Star-Lord and Gamora remain central, but the film also explores Rocket's origin story exceptionally well. The ensemble cast, including Mantis, Nebula, Groot, and Drax, deliver standout performances. New additions like Cosmo and Blurp add charm, while Adam Warlock's portrayal, though slightly disappointing, is explained within the storyline. The film is emotional, with impactful end credit scenes, making it a must-watch in theaters.
Holiday Special: The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special is an exciting and enjoyable addition to the franchise, offering a fun and engaging viewing experience. The special presentation is a delightful continuation of the characters' stories, making them more relatable and adding an extra layer of excitement to the Marvel universe. This special is a testament to the franchise's creativity and is a welcome addition to the MCU continuity.

MORE SPOILER-FREE MINI-REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/mini-reviews-2022-edition
"The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special is irrefutable proof that James Gunn just can't fail. A Christmas special surrounded by the seasonal, familiar spirit, packing a huge heart and full of the filmmaker's typical, efficient humor. The main cast shares incredibly authentic chemistry, with Pom Klementieff standing out this time with a hilariously sweet, emotional performance.
Final remark for the musical numbers with amusing lyrics and Kevin Bacon perfectly playing... Kevin Bacon. I hope Marvel continues to make these TV specials."
Rating: A-

_The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special_ does what it needs to in order to be an effective Christmas tale. It is funny, heartwarming, and filled with fantastic original Christmas songs. It is nothing overly special but does what it needs to.
The writing for this special was pretty lackluster, there were more than a handful of lines that felt very awkward. I would question the acting, but we've seen and fell in love with these characters on the screen before, so the writing seems to be the culprit. Many of the Kevin Bacon and Kraglin's lines were cheesy and inorganic. I am not sure if that was the intent, but it just did not work for me.
The comedy is fantastic and hand me audibly laughing at many scenes. It was great to see the gang back together again and has me that much more excited for Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 3.
Overall, this was a decent entry into the MCU. Short, fun, and lighthearted. It does not attempt to be more than that.
**Score:** _55%_ |
**Verdict:** _Average_

**The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special is all out ridiculous kid humor and not critical to the overall MCU story, but it’s a fun way to spend 45 minutes.**
Marvel’s second Disney+ special is another success! This Guardians of the Galaxy special is much more kid-focused than Werewolf by Night, with the humor dipping into extreme goofball. Still, it is nice to laugh with some of the goofier characters of the Marvel Universe. The idea to bring Kevin Bacon into the MCU as himself was comedy genius, and the whole special ends with a sweet, sincere family feeling. I wouldn’t say this Holiday Special was as impressive as Werewolf by Night, but it was fun, and the quality and effects felt on par with the movies. Again, I wouldn’t say it is a must-see, but if you love Marvel movies and a good laugh, you will enjoy giving this 45 minutes of your time.

Probably the most underrated Bond film ever. Octopussy is a film that despite it's reputation I still love and enjoy thoroughly.

This is my favourite Roger Moore outing as Ian Fleming's "007". A good, solid adventure story with Louis Jourdan as the ruthless, scheming "Kamal Khan" and Maud Adams as the equally ruthless, but far more glamorous "Octopussy" who are both involved in some seriously high-end jewel smuggling to fund a Soviet nuclear attack on NATO by the rogue Steven Berkoff (“Gen. Orlov"). The action flows quickly and smoothly, with some fun cameos from a racket-wielding Vijay Amritraj and Albert Moses as a sort of lethal "Oddjob" in a turban. Sure, there are plenty of double-entendres but there is also a much better cohesion to the story than with many of the others, less crass innuendo - actually a decent thriller lurking underneath the traditional "James Bond" wrapping that is largely down to strong, characterful, performances for the quartet of baddies and a good script for Moore to deliver with more than a soupçon of glint in his eye. An under-rated theme song from Rita Coolidge (via Messrs. Barry & Rice); some decent aerial photography at the start and cracking locations all contribute strongly too.

Maybe the last of the great 007 films.
This one has it all. It has a big theatrical beginning with a clown running for his life from two knife throwing twins.
Well, the clown isn't 007, so you know what happens to him.
It's an excellent start for an excellent theatrical story.
The "plot" is a bit strange. There's a sort of jewel that is really hiding something more important, and it involves a kill crazy Russian general and a classic villain played by Jordan.
The wit is great in this one, and Jordan gets to eat up a lot of the lines, as does Moore.
The scenery is great, the women are beautiful, the wit is charming, the action is outstanding. What's not to like?
Well, the story could make a bit more sense, but the theatrics carry this one through.

I don't mind Moore as Bond, he's certainly not my favorite, I'm not the biggest fan of the silliness, but he has some 007 films that would make my top 10 list and...
... this is NOT one of them.
In the only thing I want to write in this review is "It is so unbelievably bad." And not like Moonraker way to over-the-top even for a 007 film bad, but just absolutely horrible bad.
And Moore was clearly a bit too old to play 007 at this point. So he kind of looked like Grandpa 007. And that doesn't work too well for stunts (ask Liam Neeson), it sort of makes it unbelievable.
And then there is the plot that was a little too.... done before to be really good. It took elements from several other 007 films, strung them all together, and hoped no one would notice.
And by Octopussy, the Moore era silliness was starting to wear thin, especially after films like The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only, that underplayed that aspect enough to make truly great installments to the franchise.

_**Roger Moore, Indiana Jones, India, Germany, Circuses, Russians, Trains, Time Bombs and Babes**_
Roger Moore's stint as James Bond lasted a whopping 12 years from 1973 to 1985. Moore started as Bond when he was 45 years old and ended when he was 57. The seven films he did are as follows:
LIVE AND LET DIE (1973), THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (1974), THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (1977), MOONRAKER (1979), FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (1981), OCTOPUSSY (1983) and A VIEW TO A KILL (1985).
All seven were hugely popular at the box office, which explains why they kept making 'em every two years.
Many Bond fans curiously look down on Moore's stint, no doubt because there was a little too much silly humor in his films but, to me, the Moore entrees are the most consistently entertaining. There's not a dud in the bunch; even the heavily maligned “Moonraker” is phenomenal. The Connery films were a little more serious, with the exception of “Diamonds are Forever,” and Sean is the quintessential Bond figure because he expertly established the role, but I ENJOY Roger Moore's stint more than any of the others. His movies have the most re-watch merit for me.
Some argue that by the time of “Octopussy” Moore was too "long in the tooth," but I don't see that. He may have been 54 years-old when “Octopussy” was shot and 56 in “A View to a Kill,” but it didn't matter. Moore ALWAYS looked perfectly convincing as James Bond, whatever his age.
As to the story, is it really necessary to go into detail about the convoluted plot of “Octopussy”? Every Bond film features a main villain and a few accomplices/subordinates who want to cause great havoc; Bond defies death at every turn and runs into numerous beautiful women as he moves from one exotic locale to another trying to figure out the villains' scheme and stop it.
“Octopussy” was filmed on location in India, East Germany & England, with the closing aerial scenes shot in Utah; these settings are fabulous as usual. We also get circuses, clowns, trains, mad Russian militarists and bombs-about-to-explode.
One thing that distinguishes “Octopussy” is that it has more of an Indiana Jones appeal than any other installment, which stands to reason since Indiana Jones was hugely popular at the time (“Raiders of the Lost Ark” came out two years earlier while “The Temple of Doom” would come out the year after “Octopussy”).
The "Bond women" featured in “Octopussy” are Sweden's own Maud Adams (who previously appeared in “The Man with the Golden Gun”) and Kristina Wayborn. I personally never found towering Maud very appealing, but Kristina has an exotic charm, although she needs to gain like 10 pounds. There are numerous other peripheral women in the film like Midge, the short brunette with full hair, and the East Indian beauty that aids Bond during the opening teaser, not to mention several circus babes.
You either like James Bond films or you don't. You either like Roger Moore as James Bond or you don't. Although, their plots will often make your head spin, these movies are nothing deep. You won't derive many nuggets of wisdom. They're essentially mindless adventure flicks with political intrigue highlighted by exotic locales and beautiful women. Their express purpose is to entertain, not enlighten. It's escapist fantasy/adventure, pure and simple.
“The Spy Who Loved Me” is usually cited as the best Moore-era Bond picture, and I agree that it’s a great Bond flick, but “Octopussy” ranks pretty high as well and is arguably the top one. As with most of Moore's Bond films, “Octopussy” throws in a bit o' goofy humor, but it's basically a serious story. It has a little Indiana Jones flare and features India, Germany, scheming Russian militarists & Afghan princes, gorgeous women, incredible action sequences, circuses, clowns, time bombs and trains. What moore could you want in a Bond pic?
The film runs 2 hours, 10 minutes.
GRADE: A-

**One of the best of the James Bond series**
Forget the dour, bland rubbish of the Daniel Craig era - Octopussy is how a James Bond film should be! **FUN!** The franchise has always been over the top ever since we saw _Sean Connery's James Bond wearing a strap on plastic seagull hat in the classic Goldfinger_ and Octopussy continues that absurdity only this time with Roger Moore.
So anyway, here 007 is on the trail of a smuggling ring whilst also trying to stop a crazed Russian general (Steven Berkoff in an amazing performance) from starting WWIII.
Beautiful looking film makes the most of the India. Some great stunt work - including a finale on top of a plane, John Barry providing a lush score, lashings of humour and a fair amount of tension - Bond disarming a nuclear weapon in a circus tent is very effective. A very _violent_ film - here, we can see Roger Moore's 007 shooting a young Russian soldier through the forehead.
_Positively shocking_!
You probably get the general idea by now that I like this one a lot. Great Bond film.
- Potential Kermode

Moonraker is another guilty pleasure Bond film, that with all the camp is still quote a serious film.

This has the great 007 elements, but misses a bit.
We get the wit, we get the beautiful women, we get the gadgets, we get the non stop action, and we even get Jaws, a fan favorite, back. Jaws even gets to speak. Maybe it was in the contract.
What is missing is the exotic locations and beautiful scenery. We do get outer space and jungles and water, but we don't quite get the exotic beauty that makes Bond films so spectacular.
While the cinematography is not as good as others in the hay day, it does still beat the 21st century Bond movies which are so dull.
Here, the victim is a maniac intent on genocide. His plan is insane, but he's a tycoon and that just makes him "eccentric" to other VIPs.
The big scene is possibly during a festival, when Bond is accompanied by a beauty who keeps lookout while he goes into a building. The beauty notices a tall masked character edging ever closer to her.
There's also the space battle, which doesn't work as well as the underwater battle of Thunderball, but it isn't bad. The direciton is pretty solid. It's just not a great milieu for a cinematic battle.
All in all,it's an exciting film that gets hate from those who are jealous of entertainment that works, but it isn't in the top five. I rank it 7th greatest of the Bond films. Sometimes, I rank it 8th or 9th, but it keeps in that vicinity.

They can't all be winners.
I mean, yeah it was action packed and the fight over the parachute was really cool. And Bond did have space elements in the movies before... but Moonraker kind of felt like it was jumping the shark a bit here.
Thankfully it recovered, but this was a little too much for a 007 movie. And that is saying something because, when you go see a 007 movie you expect it to be a little too much from the start.

Now my geography isn't great, but I am not sure you can actually fly from the Yukon to the British coast in fifteen minutes! That's how this outing for Roger Moore begins, and it's symptomatic of the rather weak storyline and sloppy production that seems intent on getting "James Bond" to capitalise on "Star Wars" (1977) fever. Anyway, a space shuttle is stolen and "007" is sent to visit gazillionaire industrialist "Drax" (Michael Londsale) who lives in a genuinely imported French chateau in California. A dizzying experience introduces him to "Dr. Goodhead" (Lois Chiles) and pretty soon the pair, after a bit of a sticky start, are trying to find out what happened to the missing spaceship and to thwart an ingenious plan to replace the population of the planet with an Aryan-style perfect race. Everyone here just looks tired. Lonsdale tries hard to inject some sort of menace but the rest of it lumbers along in an episodic fashion with a couple of set-piece escapades that are frequently let down by poor visual effects (the dogs eating the steaks, or the gondola chase - where they have clearly just speeded up film...). John Barry and Hal David delivered another number for Shirley Bassey and, indeed, the score provides quite a bit of the humour with nods to "Close Encounters" (1977) and the "Magnificent Seven" (1960) but the rest of this is really mediocre. Usually there are a few scenarios in a "Bond" film where he implausibly survives almost certain death, but here he seems to constantly lurch from the frying pan to the frying pan time and time again - with the newly loved-up "Jaws" (Richard Kiel) really failing to inject much menace as we head into outer space for our colourful, but rather silly, denouement. The franchise is running out of steam, and needs a serious reboot.

One of the best of the Moore era
I steered clear of “Moonraker” (1979) for years because critics almost unanimously said it was awful. So when I finally sat down to view it I fully expecting a dog. Wrong! “Moonraker” is thoroughly entertaining from beginning to end and is one of the best of Roger Moore's 7-movie stint in the series.
The plot revolves around 007 investigating Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale) after a space shuttle on loan to the British is stolen. James slowly discovers that Drax has a mad scheme to recreate a race of perfect human specimens. The giant Jaws (Richard Kiel) returns from “The Spy Who Loved Me” (1977) as Bond teams-up with the beautiful Dr. Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles). The story climaxes with a spectacular battle at Drax' space station.
Everything in “Moonraker” is over the top: The locations, the action, the villainous scheme, the humor, the seriousness, Jaws and the space finale. This works fabulously because Bond films were never meant to be deep, thought-provoking pieces of art, but rather grandiose pieces of thrilling eye candy with an amusing sense of the absurd.
One thing that I demand in any Bond adventure is great globe-trotting and spectacular locations. This is one of the reasons I consider “License to Kill” (1989) weak, but “Moonraker” delivers in spades! The film starts out with breathtaking scenes high above Napa Valley, California, as Bond engages in a thrilling sky-diving duel. From there we get France, Venice, Rio De Janeiro, the jungles of Brazil & Guatemala and the spectacular Iguazu Waterfalls, Argentina.
Lois Chiles is one of the more beautiful and competent Bond "girls." Of course her name, "Dr. Goodhead,” is ludicrous in the tradition of Pussy Galore and Chew Mee. Meanwhile Drax is a formidable, serious nemesis contrasted by the cartoonish villainy of Jaws.
The film works on every level in entertaining the viewer but, depending on one's tastes, some people may have a cavil or two. For instance, many criticize the goofy humor associated with Jaws. The good thing is that it's actually funny and you'll likely bust out laughing a number of times. Regardless, the picture remains an essentially serious story, albeit totally outlandish, which is in keeping with the series, e.g. “Goldfinger” (1964) and “You Only Live Twice” (1967).
Others object to the notion of Bond in space. I don't get this beef. He's been all over the earth and in every ocean, why not an adventure in space for something new? Some have criticized that “Moonraker” was trying to go "Star Wars,” but this makes no sense; “Moonraker” has nothing in common with "Star Wars." It would be like arguing that “Thunderball” (1965) ripped-off "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" because it has underwater scenes.
Something else I'd like to point out: One of the reasons I steered clear from “Moonraker” for so many years was because I thought most of the film took place in space, and space is not something I seek in a Bond flick, but this isn't the case. Bond doesn't go up in space until over an hour & a half into the story! Only like 23% of the film takes place in space. More importantly, the climax is actually interesting and exciting unlike the ending of, say, “The Spy Who Loved Me,” which isn’t as compelling.
Roger Moore has done more Bond films than any other actor (which is only matched by Sean Connery IF you include his unofficial 1983 entry “Never Say Never Again”). Roger started the role in 1972 when he was 44 and ended in 1985 at the age of 57 (!!). Regardless of his age he always looked great and perfectly convincing as 007; yes, even in “A View to a Kill” (1985). His movies contained more humor and action than the slightly-more-serious early 60's Bond films, which were fantastical and absurd in their own way (e.g. Oddball's killer hat, etc.), but Moore's stint isn't so different when you consider Connery's later films, like “You Only Live Twice” and, especially, “Diamonds are Forever” (1971).
Many prefer the Connery era, and I certainly appreciate those films, but I find the Moore period to be the most consistently entertaining in the series. Every one of his films was successful at the box office and “Moonraker” was the most successful Bond film until Pierce Brosnan's “Goldeneye” in 1995. There's not a dud in the bunch. They're colorful, vibrant and full of pizazz.
The film runs 2 hours, 6 minutes.
GRADE: A-

**THE BIGGEST BOND OF ALL!**
Moonraker is a joy from beginning to end. Huge spectacle, stunning locations, lashings of humour, superb stunts, sexy ladies, a despicable and memorable villain, great special effects and of course, the legendary Sir Roger Moore as James Bond.
Elements of You Only Live Twice - spaceships swallowing spaceships - are expanded upon here and Moonraker fits right in with the classic silliness that the Bond franchise has always embraced.
It's a shame that the 2006 reboot threw it all away and chose to run away from being Bond films.

A View to a Kill uses to he my least favourite Bond film but since I actually quite like it now that would mean that spot now goes to Spectre.

Roger Moore's last outing as 007 is his weakest. This story that Christopher Walker "Zorin" plans to dominate the world micro-chip industry by destroying California's silicon valley takes the franchise just a shade beyond credible. Whilst Grace Jones’ "May Day" is lithe and beautiful, she has no subtlety or panache and Walken hasn't the script or the charisma to do justice to his role as the megalomanic industrialist. Moore tries his best, and with early appearances by Patrick Macnee there is a semblance of some of the style of films gone before; but as it develops this is all - except, perhaps, the "butterfly act" about large scale photography and product placement. Duran Duran & John Barry got a Golden Globe for the title song, but that is probably the only highlight for me...

They tried hard to make this the worst movie ever.
They at least made it the worst Bond movie ever by not only making it dull, without motivation, without strategy, without inspiration, without wit, but also by giving it the dumbest title ever (what is a "view to a kill"?) and the absolute worst theme song ever.
A theme song that sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard, and that's the truth. It's the worst song Duran Duran ever did. It might be noted that no male artist should ever do a Bond song. The results are terrible. But it's mostly because the songs are written for a product instead of being inspired.
Now, the story. Well, it begins with the issue of poorly bred horses being genetically maneuvered, which mirrored the actual events of the time, as it was during the later 80s when a very covert faction in Kentucky had closed meetings for an Equine club.
To put it in a nutshell, some genetic engineering was obviously going on with the thoroughbreds. Six furlong sprinter Mr. Prospector was a big zero as a sire for the 10 furlong derby distance until the Equine club perfomed some covert acts. Either by genetic engineering or by early surgery to change the structutre of the Prospector foals. You see, Mr. Prospector was a Kentucky bred horse owned by the biggest farm in Kentucky.
Well, that idea appears for a second in this movie, and is then never explained again, as if some big shots int he industry hushed it up.
Meanwhile, Bond is paired with a plain Jane and the hot girls all get killed, to appease the female audience, and since about 1970, movie makers realized it was the women who decided what movies the family would watch in theaters.
Christopher Walken is poorly used in this movie. He really doesn't do much. He's just an evil villain. There isn't any motivation to speak of for any of the characters.
A lot of bang and boom that just gets dull and dumb. It's full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Walken, right, you can sit back and watch A View to a Kill because of Walken.
But let's be honest, he is the ONLY reason that you can sit back and finish this. The 70s, by 1985, were long over and Moore was clearly the 70s era 007. The mood, the atmosphere, the silliness, the feel of 007 needed to change and we still had 70s Bond in 85.
And then, Moore himself looked kind of like Bond in his 70s. He was far too old for the role. Too old to be believable as a super spy. Too old fit the part, and needed to pass on the mantel a few films ago.
By 85 the Silly Bond Era needed to end. They needed a new 007, and this, and Moore, just didn't work any more.

Not as good as the previous four, but still a solid Bond film with Christopher Walken, Tanya Roberts and Grace Jones
A mission in wintery Siberia leads Agent 007 (Roger Moore) to globetrot from England to Paris to San Francisco and Silicon Valley investigating a horse-racing scam and the psychopathic entrepreneur, Max Zorin (Christopher Walken), who schemes to flood Silicon Valley for the purpose of creating a global microchip monopoly.
This was Moore’s last of 7 Bond films from 1973-1985 and it’s a solid Bond flick, just not up to the exceptionalness of the previous four films: “The Spy Who Loved Me” (1977), “Moonraker” (1979), “For Your Eyes Only” (1981) and “Octopussy” (1983). Just as “For Your Eyes Only” toned down the excesses of “Moonraker,” so “A View to a Kill” (1985) scales things down after the ultra-action-packed adventures of “Octopussy.”
As such, the movie focuses a little more on the psychological drama of intrigue and rivalry. For instance, there’s a long sequence at Zorin’s impressive chateau and a horse racing scene that’s reminiscent of the low-key golf game in “Goldfinger” (1964). Despite this direction, there’s still a lot of action, like a thrilling ski chase in Siberia, a murder/chase at the Eiffel Tower & Paris, a brouhaha at a mansion, a fiery elevator shaft episode, a wild vehicle chase through the streets of San Francisco with a fire engine, an extended clash in Zorin’s mine complex near the San Andreas fault and a thrilling climax at the Golden Gate Bridge.
On the female front, Tanya Roberts is just stunning and has a couple of quality scenes. A year earlier she did "Sheena" where she had to thin down to fit into a skimpy animal-skin bikini (although she still looked great). Meanwhile Grace Jones is a formidable villainous with an interesting story arc. Mary Ann Catrin Stavin also has a quality cameo in the opening teaser.
I shouldn’t close without mentioning critics’ denouncements of Zorin’s psychopathic actions in the mines. I don’t get these whiney criticisms, are Bond villains supposed to be nice guys or something? Zorin is mad and this is what megalomaniacal whack jobs do!
The film runs 2 hours, 11 minutes.
GRADE: B

**Highly entertaining Bond movie**
Surprisingly serious Bond movie has Roger Moore step up to the plate for the last time as 007 - this time tackling none other than a psychotic Christopher Walken.
One of the better entries, this film has it all - action, humour, beautiful locales, sexy ladies, a scary villain, great stunt work, a classic theme song and of course, the legendary Roger Moore as James Bond.
It's a shame that Barbara Broccoli threw all of this classic Bond fun down the toilet in 2006. Bond has always been silly and, sadly, the 2006 reboot has thrown it all away and has no rewatchbility.

**_Quest for freedom_**
If you can't handle the counterculture movement of the late 60s and early 70s and all that went with it (hippies, drugs, skinny dipping, free sex and communes) I suggest staying away from "Easy Rider." For everyone else, this is an excellent period piece of the late 60s (shot in 1968) that explores the nature of freedom and the quest thereof.
Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper star as Wyatt and Billy, two hippies who travel by choppers from Los Angeles to New Orleans to attend the Mardi Gras. Along the way they experience gorgeous landscapes, a commune, jail, new friends, unexpected enemies, drugs galore and a brothel when they arrive.
Jack Nicholson stands out as one of the friends they meet; while the beautiful Karen black & Toni Basil star as two prostitutes in New Orleans.
What makes "Easy Rider" great is that it's more than just a road adventure with a modern Western garnish (i.e. Cowboys on motorized "horses"). The film has depth that separates it from the typical biker flicks of that era. It's really about freedom or the lack thereof. Wyatt and Billy certainly have some grasp of freedom - and they desperately pursue it - but they're ironically so shackled by their OWN carnal desires and growing addictions that the most they attain is a piece of it.
Wyatt laments near the end of the film: "We blew it; we really blew it" as he realizes freedom has slipped through their fingers like water. Nicholson's character, George, has more of handle on what's going on, but he obviously has his own issues.
The hippies at the commune seem to have escaped society's shackles but to what end? There's a reason communes never really caught on in America, and the film shows why.
In an interview with Rolling Stone in the early 70s, Fonda pointed out that Wyatt represented everybody who feels that freedom can be bought, that you can find freedom through other things, like riding motorcycles across the country or smoking pot. He confessed that "Easy Rider" is actually about the LACK of freedom in modern Western Civilization. Wyatt and Billy are not right, they're wrong. So the most fitting thing the writers (Fonda & Hopper) could do in the end was... (I can't give away the climax).
In a sense, they were committing self-destruction, which Fonda claimed America was doing. He said viewers often respond to the end by lamenting, "Look at those terrible rednecks, blah, blah, blah." But "Easy Rider," he pointed out, is a Southern term for a prostitute's man, not a pimp, but the dude who lives with her. He's got the easy ride. And that's what he claims happened to America - liberty's become a prostitute, and we're all taking the easy ride.
So what's the answer? The answer's there and it's pretty clear, but I won't hand-feed it to anyone. Seek and you will find.
This might give you some food for thought the next time you catch the film.
Some modern viewers with ADHD criticize the film as boring, but I find it strangely engrossing from beginning to end. The climax is equal parts sudden, powerful, shocking and unforgettable.
The film runs 1 hour, 35 minutes, and was shot in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah (Monument Valley) and Louisiana.
GRADE: A

_**Wannabe edgy high school horror satire with a notable cast**_
Several students at a high school in Ohio suspect that the faculty has been taken over by some… thing(s).
"The Faculty" (1998) was directed by Robert Rodriguez, who knows how to make slick, ‘cool’ horror flicks, as witnessed in “From Dusk Till Dawn” (1996) and “Planet Terror” (2007). “The Faculty” is cut from the same cloth except it goes too far over-the-top in its wannabe edgy depiction of high school life in Middle America, to the point that it can only be viewed as a satire or black comedy. This turned me off the first time I watched it but, if you roll with it, you can enjoy the movie to some degree.
The story doesn’t become compelling until the second half when a group of students team-up to tackle the unbelievable situation. It’s basically “The Hidden” (1987) set in a high school environment.
Laura Harris is the top female, although the overrated Jordana Brewster is also on hand, as well as Clea DuVall. Bebe Neuwirth looks great as the principal while Salma Hayek plays a nurse, but not enough is done with her (don’t expect the dance sequence of “From Dusk Till Dawn”). Meanwhile Famke Janssen appears as an intimidated teacher that has an entertaining metamorphosis.
On the other side of the gender spectrum, Shawn Hatosy is notable as the main protagonist; Josh Hartnett too as a chemical-obsessed older student. Robert Patrick from “Terminator 2” plays the vein-popping coach while Jon Stewart has a small role.
The film runs 1 hour, 44 minutes, and was shot in East Texas as follows: Austin (Herrington High School), Lockhart (high school parking lot, football field & town exteriors) and San Marcos.
GRADE: C+

Body Snatchers was just a made up story...
Herrington High School, just your everyday place of learning. That is until the teachers start behaving strangely. It seems there is an alien plot to take over the world and only a rag-tag group of students can save us!
When you pair Robert Rodriguez (director) and Kevin Williamson (writer) what sort of movie do you really think you are going to get? Well the answer is The Faculty, which in all honesty holds absolutely no surprises for anyone familiar with the guys who gave us From Dusk Till Dawn & Scream respectively. That's not to say that The Faculty isn't a fun horror/sci-fi film, because it absolutely is, it's just should be noted that The Faculty is all that it can be as regards the makers and the nature of the genre beast.
The film has rightly been tagged as a cross between Invasion Of The Body Snatchers and any teen led Highschool movie (you can add Invaders From Mars in the mix too), this is intentional, something that's apparent since our intrepid students discuss "Snatchers" amongst other movie references, and one of them, Stokely (Clea Duval), is a sci-fi aficionado . As things progress it's also evident that the makers here are movie fans making a movie for movie fans, all be it one aimed solely at the teenage demographic. There's much satire around and cliché's are widely embraced, but again it works because there is no hidden agenda. There's gore and hugely effective scenes involving blood, slugs, heads and an eyeball, whilst slasher fans are catered for in a couple of - if seemingly pointless as regards the alien's intentions - memorable scenes.
The youngsters in the cast, all purposely playing total stereotypes, all do what is required, with Josh Hartnett, Duval & Elijah Wood particularly shining. Yet it's with the adult actors that The Faculty really gains its tongue in cheek momentum. Robert Patrick, Famke Jansen, Salma Hayek, Piper Laurie, Bebe Neuwirth and even Jon Stewart all file in for a bit of alien parasitical fun. Come the end of the mania, with the staple alien queen reveal and showdown, there's the overriding feeling that the film could have been so much more. Certainly it's guilty of being a touch too derivative, where a little focus has been lost in the self referential and knowing in-jokery genre winks. But ultimately it's a groovy ride is this one, not in the least bit serious, but one to clip open a tin of beer with and embrace it for what it certainly is. Entertaining sci-fi alien invasion hokum. 7/10

Totally underrated, prime late 90s Sci-Fi/Horror/Comedy with an incredible cast that has somehow managed to stay under the radar even now, twenty years later on. _The Faculty_ is one of those movies I make everybody watch.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Oh no, not another shock / exploitation film. It's just edgy trash that tries to traumatize the viewer. The movie has nothing new to offer that many other films have made with actual story included.
As the director said of the film "modern-day colonialism via sexual exploitation of a poor country's human resource".