Rick, it's the Nineties. Can't afford to be afraid of our own people anymore, man.
1991
"One out of every twenty-one Black American males will be murdered in their lifetime"
"Most will die at the hands of another Black male"
"Increase The Peace" is the closing message of John Singleton's powerful, intelligent and affecting call for calm in South Central Los Angeles. Often mistakenly presumed by those who haven't seen it to be a film that glamorises violence, Singleton's debut film takes us into South Central and holds us there by just shooting the story. No trickery or overtly moralistic posturing from the director (and writer), just an unpretentious look at life in a modern ghetto.
The story follows three black teenagers as they ponder on what life holds for them as adulthood lurches from around the corner. Brothers Doughboy (Ice Cube) and Ricky Baker (Morris Chestnut) and best friend Tre Styles (Cuba Gooding Jr), each have the usual worries that come with leaving the teenage years behind. Parents, girls, careers, not returning to the pen! But this is no ordinary coming of age drama, we have been party to this neighbourhood that these boys live in. This is a place where a trip to the store can get you killed in a drive by shooting. A place where those keen to learn and do their homework have their muse shattered by the frequent sound of gunshots and sirens filling the South Central night.
Though Singleton can be accused of painting some of his characters as too saintly, he should be forgiven since this is after all, a message movie. Besides which his portrait of this particular neighbourhood is done from honest memory since he himself be a former youth of South Central LA. There in lies one of Boyz's trump cards, Singleton, through his own observations, asks of those in "The Hood" to take responsibility for what they do. Something that is potently given narrative credence courtesy of Tre's father's (a fabulous understated Laurence Fishburne) deep musings. Once the built up tension explodes with the inevitable tragedy that all should be ready for, the impact is like a sledgehammer hitting bone. Not in a blood letting for impact sake, but with the aftermath as a family soaks up the situation. It gives 90s cinema one of its most affecting and damning scenes, one that once viewed is hard to fully shake out of the memory bank. Here Singleton could possibly have bowed out of the story, but he goes further, expanding the aftermath and taking us, along with the characters, to the final "Increase The Peace" dénouement.
It's been called everything from an After School Special to the most important Black American movie made thus far. I agree with the last assessment. 9/10

Good use of budget. Interesting enough. Good ideas. I watched it because I thought I had to because Code 8 part two was out as well. I probably wouldn't have watched it without that. I'm glad I watched it.

Code 8 is X-Men minus the budget and the A-list cast, and that's the good news. Unfortunately, the movie suffers more, not when it deviates from, but when it copies Marvel's mutants. Code 8 is set in a world where 4% of the population are born with various supernatural abilities, but instead of being rich and famous, they face discrimination, live in poverty, and often turn to crime.
As far as I can tell, Code 8 is an allegory about illegal immigrants in the US – the image of day laborers waiting for a van to take them to work is unmistakable, because we have seen it in other, better films (e.g., El Norte). There is also the matter of an addictive narcotic called Psyke manufactured from the cerebrospinal fluid of the People with Power (doesn't quite have the same ring as X-Men, does it?); a drug literally made by and for them.
Addressing that some immigrants are forced to smuggle and sell drugs while others turn to alcohol and other drugs to cope with depression and anxiety is one of the things that Code 8 does well. The problem is that the movie doesn't seem to understand that illegal immigrants do these things because they are powerless. If Mexicans entering the United States illegally had the kind of power that Code 8 characters have, Los Angeles would have been returned to Mexico a long time ago.
Connor and his similarly 'empowered' peers are oppressed because they want to be; what prison could contain them? I estimate that four “People with Powers” could reasonably demand that the President “kneel to Zod” within a week at most.
We know where illegal immigrants come from; of places where, to put it in the terms of the United States Declaration of Independence, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are nothing short of impossible (otherwise they'd stay put). Conversely, establishing the origin of the protagonists' powers in Code 8 is not as simple.
Like those of the X-Men, these powers are unexplained – and unexplainable –, and include the usual for a superhero (manipulation of electricity, superhuman strength), as well as, for lack of a better term, magic (telepathy, telekinesis) and finally, as Jules Winnfield would say, "miracles according to Hoyle" (healing the sick). Consider this: Sutcliffe's main lackey is bulletproof. Bulletproof! How does one even go about becoming bulletproof?
Code 8 is a very imaginative movie (my favorite part is the Guardians, robot cops that drop from drones), but it has absolutely zero curiosity about its own characters. Where do their powers come from? How do they work? And why don't they use them on a larger scale? These are all questions that Code 8 doesn't answer because it doesn't even bother to ask them.

Robbie Amell is undoubtedly a good-looking man, but that really does not forgive the fact that as an actor, he is really dead behind the eyes. The concept here is quite interesting - ordinary people have superpowers and are all still pretty much persecuted by the authorities. Amell is down on his luck and has a sick mother so, to pay for her extortionately expensive treatment, he seeks work casually - and soon falls in with the wrong company where he uses his powers (he can generate and focus electricity) to further their petty, but increasingly ambitious criminal activities. This gets him caught up between a drug-smuggling gang and with the pursuing police. Cousin Stephen discards his bow and arrow for this film, instead heading the druggie gang that will betray everyone/anyone as soon as look at them. The dialogue and pace of the film - there are some decent action scenes - keep it moving quite well, and the visual effects do their job - but the acting is just bland and the story an amalgam of B-grade X-men themes.

Code 8 never really grabbed me, though I managed to watch it all the way through. Perhaps I am an outlier viewer, but I would have liked to see more time spent on why society lowered the status of the super-powered people to practically second class citizens. To me that might have been more compelling viewing than the details of Connor’s descent into crime or his mother’s rather stereotypical declining health. But within its narrow plot and limited number of interesting characters, it may have been less than great, but it was better than mediocre.

I thought the trailer made _Code 8_ look like it was gonna be pretty bad, but I liked the premise, and I wanted to see what Stephen Amell could do in a 2019 feature film, so I gave it a chance, and while I don't think it was great, it was better than I had been expecting. There were some bits that sort of reminded me of last year's _Darkest Minds_, and that's definitely a bad thing, but overall it was actually pretty decent. It goes for both the social commentary, and a *pew pew splodey zap zap* action crime thriller. It doesn't work **spectacularly** as either, but it tries, and its failures certainly are not abysmal ones.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

**A good piece of family entertainment.**
This is one of those regular fantasy films that were a hit when they hit television during the 90s, becoming a fairly regular presence on weekend afternoons and holidays. Easily appealing to children and young people, it is a family film that entertains and moves.
The film is set in an uncertain period of the Middle Ages, in a legendary European kingdom where the young and cruel Einon reigns with an iron fist and no heart. As a teenager, his life had been saved by a dragon that gave him half of its own heart. Now, he ignores his master's lessons of honor and bravery, and rules like a tyrant. However, the population is fed up with his excesses and Bowen, the king's former tutor, decides to lead the revolt against him with the help of a dragon, the last one still alive, and precisely the one that saved the king.
I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this film because it's far from being a relevant work for those involved, even though its popularity at the time was remarkable. There are many nice and well done things in this film, starting with the script. Yes, it's a cheesy story, it looks a lot like Robin Hood and other like that, it's full of clichés and the humor is, to say the least, off-putting. But the truth is that it entertains and has enough fantasy and emotion to delight us. There are some good fight scenes, the castle attack sequence is exciting and intense, the special effects and the CGI (a new technology, at the time) used are quite worthy and do a very good job considering the time and resources. We also have excellent cinematography and a memorable soundtrack, truly epic, which was then used for a thousand and one uses, as we know.
The actors, despite not shining, make a credible effort and are reasonably committed. There are some well-known names here, starting with the dragon's voice, lent by the unmistakable Sir Sean Connery, in one of the best voice dubbing work done by him. Dennis Quaid was capable enough in the role of a mature hero, already not very young, but it is the quality of David Thewlis that surprises us and steals all the attention. The actor brought the perfidious King Einon to life in a truly remarkable way, with commitment and emotion, giving him touches of cynicism, sadism and madness. I have a very strong feeling that Thewlis drew his inspiration from Peter Ustinov's wonderful performance in “Quo Vadis”, in the role of Nero. Finally, Pete Postlethwaite seems to really enjoy the character he was lucky enough to play, a friendly monk with the air of a great troubadour.
Unfortunately, I didn't like Dina Meyer at all: she doesn't make an effort for her character and the romantic chemistry with Quaid is absolutely nil. I also missed the contextualization, in time and space: as the film is pure fantasy, we don't even have the notion of a concrete place or time, in order to be able to copy clothes, technologies, architecture. Although the movie had good sets and costumes, I can't say that I really liked them because they were too fanciful.

**The first step towards the new order after a great disaster.**
A dystopian British film. Zombie theme based on the book of the same name. The story of a few survivours, but all the focus was on the little girl. Thematically a very familiar film, but the storyline from the characters' perspective makes it unique. Nice cast, but it was not about Gemma Arterton. Her part was small, despite she can be seen in the film's entire stretch.
At the beginning, I did not know what's happening. Only after the second stage of the story commence, most of the doubts were cleared. But again, till the final scene, the film holds us with the strong progression. In some parts, it looks silly, but makes sense on the basis of its all the developments.
After their enclosure was broke, a group of survivours roams around the London looking for the food and the safe place. They manage to get away in some of the close encounters with the running deads. But how long it goes like that becomes the question. Besides, they divide when the girl comes into their topic. How the story ends was with a small twist.
There were some good zombie films in the last two years. This is one of those. If you like zombie theme, you might find it a refreshing. Not the storywise, but the characters. The little kid was so good. They have picked the right one for that role. Looks like it could be a cult film. Ends high, but I don't think there will be any sequel or prequel in the future. Definitely worth a try.
_7/10_

“Rob” (John Cusack) is a thirty-something who owns a record shop and is starting to feel a little mortality as he reviews five of the relationships that have peppered his life. That’s not including the two people who clutter his life on a daily basis. Those are the geeky “Dick” (Todd Louiso) and the brash “Barry” (Jack Black) who have been imposing themselves on “Rob” and his customers with their diverse varieties of musical snobberies for years. With this eclectic mix of personalities behind the counter and a dwindling interest in vinyl in front of it, this isn’t a business that’s exactly thriving! It’s his latest split from “Laura” (Iben Hjejle) that’s focusing his mind as he felt more certain she was the one! Mind you, he’s thought that about everyone since his first love as a child at school. Cusack mixes the story up engagingly here with some self-revealing pieces to camera interspersed with the retrospectives of his flailing attempts to attract and keep a woman. He’s got hapless down to a fine art, and his own life is quite aptly associated with the variety of tunes that emanate from his store, suiting his ever vacillating mood. Some of his predicaments are relatable and funny as his courting follows lines that will be familiar, I’m sure, to many of us and are sometimes cringingly close to the bone. I always find Jack Black to be too over-the-top and here he manages to carry that off to the point where his character is actually quite one effectively obnoxious, but that actually works quite well with the quieter Louiso’s “Dick” whose more considered choice of indie music resonated more favourably with me (and other Belle and Sebastian fans). It’s a well paced and written observation of a man facing a crisis of confidence that I think is Cusack’s most natural effort on screen to date.

**_Romantic head games become tedious_**
Released in 2000 and directed by Stephen Frears, "High Fidelity" is a romcom/dramedy starring John Cusack, as Rob, the owner of a Chicago record store, co-starring Jack Black and Todd Louiso as his two employees, Barry and Dick. When Rob's relationship with his live-in girlfriend, Laura (Iben Hjejle) falls apart, he reflects on the five worst break-ups of his dozen years of dating. His past girlfriends are played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, Joelle Carter, Lili Taylor and Natasha Gregson Wagner. Tim Robbins appears as Rob's rival for Laura's affections while Joan Cusack is on hand as Laura's sister. Lisa Bonet plays a rocker chick, a passing fancy for Rob. Sara Gilbert has a bit part.
What's interesting about "High Fidelity" is that it features the five general prototypes of guys' dating life: (1.) the first crush & kiss, (2.) adolescent urgency & loss of virginity, (3.) the hot babe out of his league, (4.) the rebound best friend & soul mate, and (5.) his one true love (maybe).
If you've ever made a compilation tape for a babe and worked at a record store you might appreciate this film. You'll particularly like it if you favor romantic head games, which I find irritating and is the main reason I have mixed feelings about the film (speaking as a one-woman type of guy). Because of this, I had a hard time staying with it, although there's enough good in the movie to make it somewhat worthwhile. It's witty and you can tell the creators put a lot of thought into it, but Rob's mopey reflections as he constantly speaks to the camera get tedious after a while. Don't get me wrong, John pulls off the challenging lead role and does so convincingly; I just found his perpetually-smoking character uninteresting. As far as the soundtrack goes, the 90's pop rock struck me as mostly bland.
Thankfully, there are several amusing moments. For instance, the scene where someone confronts Rob at the record store in the second half is laugh-out-loud funny, but Rob's relationship with Laura is decidedly Uninteresting; and Laura's emotional instability and indecisiveness become increasingly annoying (anyone who would marry such a relationally fickle person would have to be insane). Actually, most of Rob's romantic relationships become annoying although, like I said, there are amusing bits. Then there's Barry who arrogantly thinks his opinion on music is law; I kept hoping he'd get his teeth knocked in. On a positive note, the mental manipulations of Rob's unstable romantic life are offset by Dick, who shows the way to go.
"Empire Records" (1995) is the better movie simply because it doesn't go overboard with the dating/romance head games crap.
The film runs 113 minutes and was shot in Chicago.
GRADE: C

Seen this one a few times over the years, still great each viewing with John Cusack in his element, might even argue should've been nominated for an Oscar. I'm not a music fan but still liked that element and features a good supporting cast. **3.75/5**

What came first - the music or the misery?
High Fidelity is directed by Stephen Frears and adapted to screenplay by D.V. DeVincentis, Steve Pink, John Cusack and Scott Rosenberg from the Nick Hornby novel. It stars Cusack, Jack Black, Iben Hjejle and Todd Louiso. Music is by Howard Shore and Cinematography by Seamus McGarvey.
Record store owner and compulsive list-compiler Rob Gordon (Cusack), embark's upon a what does it all mean mission when his latest girlfriend leaves him.
Cusack and Pink take Hornby's hugely popular novel and redirect it to Chicago, with joyous results. High Fidelity is a tale of human love and a love of music, a sort of battle of the sexes with a soundtrack of masculine life. Rob's voyage of self discovery is highly amusing, the trials and tribulations of relationships bringing out a number of scenes and scenarios that ring true, not just tickling the funny bones, but also tugging the heart and cradling the brain.
Away from the doomed love angles it's the music threads that literally strike the chords. Rob and his two co-workers Barry (Black) & Dick (Louiso) worship music and continually indulge in making top 5 lists whilst bickering with sarcastic glee in the process. All three actors are superb, a trio of odd balls bouncing off of one and other with a zest that's infectious, though it's decidedly Cusack's show. A perpetual miserablist who addresses us the audience at frequent intervals, Rob in Cusack's hands garners sympathy, pity and laughs in equal measure.
In the support slots is a ream of talent well in on the joke, beauties like Catherine Zeta-Jones (dropping F-Bombs like they are going out of fashion), Lisa Bonet & Joelle Carter are complimented by the comic skills of Joan Cusack, while Hjejle turns in a wily and womanly performance as the girlfriend who kicks starts Rob's search for meaning. Elsewhere the sight of Tim Robbins as a new age hippy type - with a black belt in martial arts - is so much fun it reminds of what a good comic actor he can be as well.
As with Grosse Point Blank, another Cusack/Pink production, sound tracking is everything, and naturally given the setting of the story there is an abundance of classic tunes to delight in. All told it's a special movie, for all sexes and for all music lovers, but especially for anyone who has had relationship problems. Now what did come first, the music or the misery? Priceless. 9/10

It was bad. The writing is bad. It could be better tho. Actors are not so great either. I don't know if it's just me or Chris Rock is not really suitable for his character. I just want to say kudos to the cinematographers. Love the cinematography of this film and editors as well!

Chris Rock acting like Chris Rock with a daddy Samuel l Jackson acting like Samuel l Jackson in a weird twist of a movie that felt like a small short story in the saw series. It's not a bad movie but there's a few things that it lacked including more blood being spilled and more inventive traps. It kind of became more about the characters and less about what the spiral was trying to do which was copy jigsaw.

The latest entry into the Saw series has a couple okay moments but otherwise this was pretty bad. The acting was probably the worst culprit, chiefly Chris Rock who sprinkles in his comedic rants while Samuel L. Jackson phones it in, not that he's given a whole lot to work with (including a hilariously bad fake mustache for a flashback scene). It's also really predictable as I called who the killer was early on.
I'm okay with taking the series in a different direction as there was nowhere else to go with Jigsaw (and they stretched his story out a few movies too many) but this was a misfire. **2.0/5**

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
When it comes to horror, I'm always willing to give any film a shot, even when everything indicates it's probably going to be a massive failure. I'm admittedly not a SAW fanatic, despite quite enjoying the first two movies. After these, I can't even remember which installments I actually watched or not. Not even the most recent Jigsaw caught my attention. In preparation for Spiral, I tried to determine precisely how it would be placed in the saga's timeline, which proved to be a surprisingly challenging task. Basically, what matters for this film is that John Walker (Tobin Bell) and his work as the Jigsaw serial killer are acknowledged, making this a sequel. With that said…
Unfortunately, Spiral doesn't change my opinion about the franchise. It's a formula-driven saga that no one really cares about too much anymore. In fact, I'm pretty shocked by the fact that this installment was even greenlit, having in mind the particularly sensitive times our society lives in. Countless movies and TV shows are held to stricter standards nowadays with the risk of getting canceled or boycotted if a certain subject is treated poorly. With so much gratuitous violence, it's surprising to see this franchise still alive. Boasting curious casting choices - Chris Rock leading a horror flick is definitely an attention-grabber - the extremely bloody, gory trap killings are packed with life-or-death dilemmas as always, which will surely please hardcore fans.
However, these are just not as captivating or "fun" as before. This movie doesn't possess a single, memorable trap that surpasses any of the dozens (hundreds?) from before. Just like Josh Stolberg and Peter Goldfinger's screenplay, it's just another lazy, unsurprising variation of a well-known formula. To be fair, and I'm trusting other critics who watched all of the other installments, this is supposedly the version that separates the most from the structure people first witnessed in 2004 and 2005. Still, being different doesn't mean better, and the competition isn't exactly defined by masterpieces. From my perspective, Spiral is just another generic take on an overdone story.
From the repetitively identical kidnapping sequences to the consequent traps, the potential of a great film depended on how Darren Lynn Bousman (SAW II, III, IV) and the duo of writers tackled the characters, mainly the protagonist. The lack of characterization is definitely a problem, but the baffling laziness in storytelling ruins the entire flow of the movie. With an overwhelming amount of flashbacks and an incredibly choppy, annoying editing work (Dev Singh), the non-stop heightened, super tense atmosphere transforms every single scene like it's the most crucial moment of the film. Consequently, a vast majority of the dialogues are characters screaming and cursing at each other in almost every interaction.
The out-of-control tone negatively affects the cast's performances. Many people will look at Chris Rock (Dolemite Is My Name, Madagascar) and believe he's delivering an over-the-top display, but he's just following the chaotic environment established by the director. During the first minutes of the movie, Rock is amusing and funny as expected, but he's also able to tap his more dramatic side. However, when every single line of dialogue needs to be interpreted as if it's the most vital part of the film, very few actors can pull it off. Samuel L. Jackson (Glass, Spider-Man: Far From Home) is one of them, but his expectedly short screentime doesn't allow for much entertainment. Though it's always special seeing SLJ cursing at someone.
Finally, SAW is also about finding out who is responsible for the disgusting game, and Spiral doesn't remove that essential block of narrative. The issue here is the lack of a jaw-dropping revelation. Obviously, this is as subjective as everything you just read until now, but I would be astonished if most viewers didn't guess who the new Jigsaw copycat is during the first act. I do want to end on a positive note, so I'll compliment the bold ending. It partially holds the studio against the wall in the sense that the probability of this movie getting a sequel being higher, which can make some viewers think it's too forced. I rather believe they just wanted to have an intense finale, which I can't really deny.
Spiral might offer enough blood, gore, and brutal traps/murders to fans of the franchise, but overall it's still just another lazy, predictable take on the SAW formula. Despite the violently captivating life-or-death sequences, none stands out as an unforgettable moment. Josh Stolberg and Peter Goldfinger's screenplay lacks efficient character development, impactful revelations, and, honestly, a massive amount of creativity. From the repetitively tiresome flashbacks and kidnapping scenes to the extremely out-of-control tone, Darren Lynn Bousman isn't able to take the story to its potential. Everything is dialed up to its maximum as if every single line of dialogue needs to be screamed from the top of a mountain, which transforms the entire atmosphere into a chaotic environment. Chris Rock can't be the only one to blame for his over-tense line deliveries, especially when he starts so well. A strong yet abrupt ending doesn't compensate for such dull storytelling. I wish I could write that I'm disappointed, but I didn't have high expectations for this one.
Rating: D+

Decent watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend, especially for Rock fans.
I've fantasized about Dwayne Johnson in a tutu as much as the next guy, but this is kind of the movie equivalent of when the Rock went heel in the WWE (WWF at the time). He's playing an obnoxious, borderline MEAN, character who isn't all that smart (basically a dumb jock type) , and while the movie is about redeeming the character it is hard for the character to be redeemed.
It's just awkward, he normally plays smart capable roles where he is likeable, as Dwayne is naturally on-camera-likeable, so making him a jerk is hard, and they overcompensate. You seem something closer to what they should have done in "The Pacifier" where Vin Diesel is rough but well intended, and you can see elements of that in this, but he just goes full jerk.
I have a lot of issues with it being common practice to lie to children (which we teach them to be wary of when strangers do it), but digressing.
I have all sorts of issues with the logistics of a world where this type of tooth fairy exists, not to mention the other things they mention existing. It's not too far off from the "Santa Claus' sleigh flys by christmas cheer", so there is a theoretical version of "The Santa Claus" in here somewhere.
So the movie doesn't make sense a lot, but it's a kids movie: which would be fine, but it wildly goes back and forth between goofy antics that should almost only make kids laugh, and high concept business jokes.
I think this movie tried to do too many things and ended up getting some of the fundamental things wrong.
It's not a terrible movie, and it's probably better for a younger audience, but I don't think it's a good movie, and there are a lot of other movies, even just ones with Dwayne Johnson to watch.

This is my second time seeing this, first time since it was released on Blu-ray back when, and although it's not a great action-thriller and maybe under a more capable director could have been, but I still enjoyed it especially for John Travolta while John Rhsy-Meyers was a bit milk toast, though guess you need that type of person opposite Travolta. **3.5/5**

I just saw this movie on Netflix. I usually really - and I mean _really_ like these French Canal+ co-production movies. But I guess this one is the exception to the rule.
It starts of great and then it just gets... violent for no apparent reason; "I did it 4 the lulz" Don't get me wrong, I love guys with guns and all the violence that comes with it. But this seemed senseless.
Or so it seemed. But that end (that last.... half hour?), that was unexpected. Never saw it coming.

This series was absolutely hilarious. I have to admit, I missed out when it first started and happened to catch it with my brother one day. I believe we had seen Jerry on TV once or twice (this was way back when a lot of people didn't have cable TV) and this series became the funniest thing on TV. I watched it whenever I could but that wasn't enough. Finally, quite a few years later, I bought the DVD set and watched everything in order, plus I watched all of the extras. It is awesome. This is one of first series that I know of where you really needed to watch every episode in sequence to keep up with it. Remember when TV shows had almost "standalone" episodes? You could watch them in any order and not get lost or confused or feel like you missed something. Not anymore. Anyway, I know many people who didn't get it; 'it' being the Seinfeld/David humor... but that's because they never would sit down for an entire episode to give it a chance. And how can you expect someone to get it who can't pronounce "Seinfeld"?? It takes a very stubborn person to keep saying "SeinFIELD" even after you've corrected them a hundred times.

**A pretty decent movie, which bets everything on average and family comedy.**
As I've had occasion to say in other reviews I've written, I'm not particularly fond of romantic comedies, although I believe I can appreciate quality and value when they're there. During the pandemic, when we were all shut up at home against our will (I handled it well, but I had friends on the verge of a nervous breakdown), a friend of mine spoke to me about this film and said he didn't like it at all, because it gave viewers a negative message, trivializing the act of leaving someone at the altar. At the time, I thought it was strange, but I ended up not seeing the movie. I saw it now, and I tend not to agree with my esteemed friend.
The script begins with a disagreement between a woman from a small town and a writer and journalist from the big city, when the latter writes, in his newspaper column, about her and the succession of fiancés she has already abandoned at the altar. Obviously offended, she responds to the article, causing him to lose his position at the newspaper. Of course, he doesn't give up: he goes to that city and decides to investigate her. The rapprochement between the two will eventually lead them to an unlikely romance.
In fact, I think my friend took the film too seriously. Anyone with intelligence understands the difference between a joke and something serious, so I don't think anyone will take the movie seriously. Also, the movie was released in 1999, and we are in 2022… in the present times, who is the couple that thinks about getting married? There are, of course, but they are few in a world where jobs, homes and romantic relationships are less planned to last a lifetime (it's one of the problems of the modern world, in my opinion, but it's the truth).
The film relies heavily on the performances of Julia Roberts and Richard Gere, who we've already seen together in great shape in “Pretty Woman”. Personally, I liked "Pretty Woman" a lot more, as the characters were much more palatable. Here, we essentially have a duel of egos between two stubborn people who will eventually see the good in each other. There is also a very high degree of predictability in the story told, but this is one of the recurring problems in romantic comedies, where characters almost invariably end up at the altar. Despite all this, the work of Gere and Roberts is quite satisfying and will be able to please the fans of the genre.
On a technical level, the film doesn't stand out or bet particularly, preferring to play it safe and keep a very conventional aesthetic and look. It's almost like the dish of the day in that cafeteria where we have lunch every day, after work: made to be cheap and to please most customers. So we have sets, costumes and filming locations that are simply regular, standard cinematography and a bland soundtrack. The film stretches the script, there are pacing problems and moments when the film falls asleep due to sheer lack of subject matter. Much better is the design of the dialogues, quite witty and well-written.

There is a large section of the film set out of the water, but once back under the waves it moves more quickly, the story putting all its weight on Chanteraide's ears. If you're howling for a slice of Tom Clancy-esque military action cheese, you'll enjoy 'The Wolf's Call'.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-wolfs-call-suspense-silliness-and-sonar-sweeps

Me and my kids where shopping for other stuff at FNAC in Geneva, our go to store for not too advanced stuff in audio, video and computer gadgets, when we found this movie.
I made a quick search on IMDb and it looked like it might, finally, be a good French made movie. Apart from Louis de Funès comedies that is, I really love most of those.
Well, it turned out to be a huge disappointment. I guess I should have checked a bit more. For instance the fact that the oxygen wasting “critics” at Rotten SJW Tomatoes gave it a 100% rating should have been a red flag. Or maybe the ludicrous non-descriptive one liner description of the movie. I mean, it’s like buying a car from a dealer that says “It’s a cool car”.
Well, in my gaming days I was a great fan of submarine simulators, especially WW2 ones, so I guess I got suckered.
For starters, the premise of the movie itself, once you start watching that is, is nonsensical. One, I say ONE, missile is fired against French territory, it is assumed to be nuclear, no real evidence, and France decides to retaliate while said missile is still in flight. Seriously?
That’s something that North Korea would do. Not a civilized country and despite the fact that France right now has the worst president in modern history I would still say France counts as a civilized country.
The the movie starts with some “action” and here we are immediately shown that the writer is totally clueless as far as any form of military procedures, strategy or … well.. whatever. A nuclear submarine surfaces, the captain, the CAPTAIN, goes up in the conning tower and fires a hand held SAM on a chopper sent from a destroyer nearby. Oh, by the way, he forgot to remove the safety on the first try. The destroyer does absolutely nothing during this exchange. You’re fucking kidding me ???
Then the movie spends a shitload of time with the hero moping and moaning and being unfairly treated by the hierarchy. The film got really boring at this point. The one good part is that the superior officers, at the end, is actually the most competent characters in the movie.
When the action finally starts again it’s … well the same crap as before. Utterly unbelievable and totally unrealistic. Even the dumbass president Macron would, hopefully, known that a nuclear strike cannot be called off just like that. And when it finally comes to blows, for some reason, the “enemy” submarine has all kinds of countermeasures while the “good guys” never launches any. As I wrote before, the writer is clueless.
It’s just a incredibly bad movie. Full stop!

If you were ever to be able to commit your imagination to film when you read Bram Stoker's "Dracula" then I expect you would struggle to come up with anything more vivid than this. What is most striking is the wonderful detail as poor old estate agent "Hutter" is despatched to the home of "Count Orlok" (Max Schreck) to negotiate the acquisition of an isolated house for him. Once he arrives at the castle, we are subsumed in the eeriness and wickedness as it becomes clear that "Orlok" is an epitome of evil. Our story follows the travels of the "Count" from his castle to his new home - wreaking plague and havoc as he goes - until he arrives in the town inhabited by "Ellen" (a superbly vulnerable yet strong Greta Schröder) - the wife of the estate agent who is hot on their heals. "Ellen" has an inkling as to how to kill their nemesis, but that would involve the ultimate sacrifice. Now I have a few slight niggles with it - the inter-titles in a gothic script are, frequently, very difficult to read and that does interrupt the narrative; the editing is just a little too brutal at times and I found the score oppressive - even on the more joyous, or optimistic, scenes it seemed just a bit too overpowering than is necessary, but these are trifles when compared to the beautiful photography. Schreck is magnificent in the title role, exuding menace and malevolence, Gustav von Wangenheim ("Hutter") conveys the sense of desperation and terror in a truly evocative manner and it all adds up to a taut horror film the likes of which you'll never see in any subsequent treatment of this story.

Did I kill one of your people, Murnau? I can't remember.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Extended Cut: Proving in fact that The Wolfman is no monstrosity.
The Wolfman is directed by Joe Johnston and adapted to screenplay by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self from Curt Siodmak's original 1941 screenplay. It stars Benicio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt and Hugo Weaving. Music is scored by Danny Elfman and Shelly Johnson is the cinematographer. Plot is set in 1891 and finds Toro as Lawrence Talbot, who upon learning of his brother's grizzly murder, returns to his estranged father's estate in Blackmoor to investigate. Upon arriving he forms an instant bond with his dead sibling's fiancée, Gwen (Blunt), but soon Lawrence finds himself mired in a world of lycanthropy and family secrets.
It had a much publicised troubled production, with a director switch, numerous release date changes and enforced cuts to the running time, sitting atop of this particular iceberg. With that it mind, film is arguably better than it had any right to be. What is now readily available is an extended cut of the film where some 17 minutes of footage have been put back into the story. Footage cut originally to foolishly speed up the moment when the first transformation from man to wolfman arrives. Is the extended cut a far better movie than the trimmed theatrical version? The answer is resounding yes it is. It still contains flaws, but now the narrative is stronger and crucially by waiting much longer for the first "big change scene", tension and anticipation now exist where previously it didn't.
In spite of some modern day advancements for this 21st Century wolfman -
excessive speed for the wolf - creature smack down finale - Johnston's movie is very faithful and respectful of the 1941 original. Which is perhaps not surprising since the weight of Universal is backing this remake of one of their original classic monsters from the 30's and 40's. But it's nice to see that a remake keeps the things that made the original so beloved. Gothic texture is rich, none more so than with the mist/smog shrouded village, while the tortured sadness that permeated Lon Chaney's take on Larry Talbot back in 1941, is perfectly essayed by del Toro this time around.
The creature design itself cleaves close to the original, with Rick Baker and Dave Elsey picking up the Academy Award for Best Makeup for their excellent efforts. Fans of shred and gore are also well served here, with Johnston (The Rocketeer/Jumanji) showing a keen eye for action construction. An attack at a Gypsy camp and a bloody rampage through a bus are the stand outs, while an asylum sequence is also not to be sniffed at. Chuck in the murder mystery element, and the intriguing father and son axis, and it's a film that has more to it than merely being a CGI popcorn piece. Even Elfman's score fits neatly into the period setting.
Problem wise it comes down to Blunt and Weaving being under used, and Hopkins veering dangerously close to over hamming the omelette, yet all remain strong in characterisations. Toro, though, is not, as some have suggested, miscast. Already lupine like before transformation, he plays it perfectly troubled and brooding like. Talbot has inner demons and unanswered questions in his past, a past he has tried to shred but finds he now must confront those demons. The onset of lycanthropy serving, one feels, as a metaphor for his personal torment finally being unleashed. Toro nails it with an excellent and subdued portrayal, even if the choice of hair style leaves much to be desired. Worth a mention as well is Shelly Johnson's photography, where nice atmospheric visuals complement the tone and period flavour of the piece.
More homage than outright horror, but with a little something for everyone interested in Horror/Gothic/Mystery type movies, The Wolfman in extended form is an enjoyable enough experience. 7/10

Joel Schumacher does it again. Look into how this film was made, what went into it, the intended directors, the intended stars, the intended budget.
It started as a low budget "Dark and Gritty" film that was going to be "hand held" and star Russel Crowe and be directed by David Fincher... that would probably have worked. Look at the release date, 1999, when audiences welcomed low budget movies done well. Back in the 90s audiences accepted low budgets and dark and gritty films.
It could have been the sleeper success that Se7en was.
Instead you got Schumacher that lightened it up, and Cage that brought in more of a budget that in turn brought in more studio interference that wanted it lightened even more... with a director that agreed.
And what could have been a great movie turned to be throwaway junk... that Joel was "Still proud of" decades later, but saw the writer throw up his hands, walk away, and disown the mess.
And this was written by Andrew Kevin Walker, he tells a good story, especially if you keep things on the darker side.
This COULD have been a moody, dark, thriller with a tone so ominous that it stays with you decades later. A film that took off out of nowhere like Se7en did...
... instead it was junk and a film so forgettable that I had to be reminded that I had seen it, and, after 15 minutes, reminded why I blacked it out.

Another one of Nicholas Cage's crazy movies. Like all the rest of his movies, this one was good too.

8MM probably only got greenlit due to the success of Se7en. Like Se7en, 8MM explores the existence of people who are simply pure evil while the main character wants to know why they are like this. 8MM doesn't provide many answers but it also isn't thematically complex. It follows a standard whodunit plot. While Nicolas Cage gives a solid performance, there are times where he takes us out of the story with his signature freak outs. Joel Schumacher manages to create a gritty tone but he has a rather bland style.
Regardless of its flaws, 8MM is still a decent movie. It prefers plot over exploitation and story over violence. For those reasons, I recommend it.

Into the perverse underworld of smut, S&M and snuff films
RELEASED IN 1999 and directed by Joel Schumacher, "8MM" chronicles events when a private investigator (Nicolas Cage) is hired by an aged wealthy woman whose husband recently passed away. A snuff film was found in his safe and she wants to see if the girl in the movie (Jenny Powell) really died or not. Amy Morton appears as the girl’s mother while Joaquin Phoenix plays a wannabe rock musician in Los Angeles who works in the porn trade. Catherine Keener is on hand as the P.I.’s wife.
The movie combines the basic plot of “Hardcore” (1979) with the style of late 90’s crime thrillers, like “Kiss the Girls” (1997). The first half involves the P.I.’s tracking down the makers of the snuff film. While it’s tedious work (which I wouldn’t want to do) this part of the movie is gritty and compelling. The second half of the movie goes into material that’s difficult to pull off with a straight face, like the smut-obsessed underbelly of Los Angeles & New York. The main villains come off cartoonish somehow rather than gritty realistic, but it’s a fine line.
Still, I like the message of the movie. My wife & I knew a wealthy man who passed away a few years ago. He often didn’t pay the people he did business with, not to mention his employees who were living paycheck to paycheck. Someone asked him how he could own two Cadillacs and regularly go on globetrotting vacations while treating people like this and he arrogantly responded: “Because I caaAAAN.” The low-lifes in “8MM” have a similar attitude.
THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hours 3 minutes and was shot in Miami, Pennsylvania (Wormleysburg/Harrisburg), New York (Hastings-on-Hudson, Elmsford, Yonkers, Queens & Long Island) and S. Cal. (Los Angeles & Long Beach). WRITER: Andrew Kevin Walker. ADDITIONAL CAST: Anthony Heald plays the rich woman’s lawyer while James Gandolfini, Peter Stormare and Chris Bauer appear as smut pervs.
GRADE: B