Escape Room: Tournament of Champions ramps up the intensity from the first film with more elaborate puzzles and higher stakes, but it stumbles when it comes to logic and storytelling. The rooms are undeniably impressive, showcasing creative designs and traps that keep the tension high, but the movie leans too heavily on the spectacle, often at the expense of coherent decision-making and dialogue. There are moments where the characters’ actions feel forced, making you question their intelligence, which can pull you out of the experience. The pacing is relentless, but it doesn’t leave much room for deeper character connections or meaningful plot development.
While it’s fun and engaging in the moment, the movie struggles with its balance, offering a visually captivating experience but leaving you frustrated with its many plot holes and lack of resolution. It’s entertaining if you focus on the thrill of the escape rooms and don’t think too hard about the logic, but as a sequel, it feels more like a flashy setup for another installment rather than a solid continuation. Worth watching if you enjoyed the first, but don’t expect it to tie up loose ends or make much sense.

If you recall the conclusion of the first part (1979) then you’ll know that “Michael Myers” is now the deadliest critter alive (that’s assuming that term actually applies!). He’s certainly not forgotten “Laurie” (Jamie Lee Curtis) who’s recovering in the local hospital and luckily for him, this is a dimly lit and largely empty facility that he can wander around with relative impunity slaughtering all who come onto his path. Perhaps the only hope for the bed-ridden gal is the determined doctor “Loomis” (Donald Pleasence) who has teamed up with the sheriff (Charles Cyphers) to try to thwart this latest attempt on her life. What’s pretty clear is that this new, improved, version of “Myers” isn’t going to give up easily and that bullets and knives aren’t going to work. How to stop him? It starts off quite strongly, this film, but once the scenario switches to the hospital it becomes all a bit too stage-managed for me. The place is conveniently dark and gloomy; there is but a skeleton staff and so his rampaging is left unfettered whilst the hitherto poorly patient appears to develop live-preserving ninja skills. Also, fortunately for her her nemesis never appears to want to run anywhere so she can always make it to the timely departing elevator or the conveniently positioned window whilst he flails around robotically trying to impale her on/with something. It relies too heavily on trying to build a gradually increasing sense of peril but with has such inevitability about it that I thought it became quite sterile after about half an hour. JLC doesn’t really feature so much and the only real screaming that goes on here is that which suggests sequel. It’s watchable enough, but hasn’t the creepiness of the first one and most of his victims probably deserved their fates!

**An honorable continuation, which respects the previous work without bringing anything new.**
I don't like Halloween, and I've had time to say it before, but I recognize that it's the best time for good horror films to be broadcast on television. These days, I saw this film as a follow-up to “Halloween”. I have no doubt that it is a worthy sequel, perhaps one of the best I have seen, in that it is strictly faithful to the original and is made with quality.
It is directed by Rick Rosenthal, but the team and cast remained the same, with the addition of specific names, and John Carpenter's inspiration continues in the script he wrote and in the attention he undoubtedly gave to the entire project. Pleasance is the actor who looks in the best shape here. He finally had better material and more time to show some value on stage. Jamie Lee Curtis has essentially stayed the same and retains much of what he did. It doesn't disappoint, but it doesn't bring any surprises either. The soundtrack also doesn't bring anything new, maintaining the essence of the first film's score, which is positive.
After its initial success, it is no wonder that this film's budget was more substantial than that of the first, and that the number of corpses that fall throughout the plot also increases. A plot that is not particularly brilliant, well written and elegant, and that falls into the most basic clichés of slasher horror without any shame, but that manages, at least, to respect coherence with the original film and give the villain an almost iconic aura, an invulnerability that makes him unstoppable and impossible to kill, and that turned him into a cinema icon. In addition to these points of relative quality, we also have good lighting and cinematography, good use of sets and filming locations, better quality effects that are as well executed and practical as those previously used. Everything comes together, therefore, to form the image of a film that is not surprising, but manages to respect and stand alongside its predecessor.

I might be the only person who thinks this, but _Halloween II_ is just as good as the original.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

It's American Pie for a more sophisticated era, and with more parental involvement. This was unexpectedly good--dumb-in-the-good-way, and sweet, and lighthearted, and touching--if occasionally false--and the best straight comedy I've seen in years and years. There's humour of every kind in here, so you're bound to get at least a few laughs.

**An excellent film, full of tension and suspense.**
In my country there is a popular adage that probably also has an equivalent in other countries and that says “there is no beauty without a flaw”, that is, if something is too good, it must be wrong. And despite the excellent education and academic evaluations, the lawyer of this film seems not to know this simple truth.
Based on a novel by John Grisham, the script follows Mitch, a young lawyer who has just been hired by a large and important law firm in Memphis, Tennessee. The job is irresistible: a high salary, several perks, a car and paid trips, everything a young yuppie and his wife could want. What he doesn't know is that his new bosses are heavily financed by mafia groups to whom they provide protection and legal advice, and that lawyers who seek to leave the firm end up mysteriously dying. When he finds out, he will have to decide what to do: either maintain his loyalty to the firm or collaborate with the FBI and frame his colleagues.
The film has an excellent suspense that works wonderfully, and keeps us hooked until the end. The direction, in charge of the excellent Sydney Pollak, is really good and there is a certain similarity between this film and “Eyes Wide Shut”, another intense suspense film in which Cruise and Pollak work together again. And I have no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock's masterwork also had its influence on the way Pollak conceived his film. The script has many twists and turns and may demand some attention from the audience, but I guarantee that this will not be a problem if the spectator allows himself to be involved and absorbed by the suspense and tension that are gradually imposed.
I'm not a fan of Cruise, but I recognize that he is a solid and sympathetic protagonist, making the character someone for whom we can have a certain empathy, oscillating between naivety and wit. There are a good handful of well done action scenes that the actor was more than cut out for. Gene Hackman, in turn, gives life to a mature, bohemian lawyer who seems to be more interested in traveling and swimming in the Caribbean than in working with his clients. However, he was also a sympathetic presence, and I really hoped that his character would get away with it somehow. Jeanne Tripplehorn doesn't seem to have much to do, and I thought, at first, that she would just be the protagonist's shy and fragile wife. However, the script gives us a twist that refocuses the character and gives her a much more active and intervening role than we could guess in the first half-hour length. One can also mention the good performances of Ed Harris, Steven Hill and Wilford Brimley, in roles that are tougher and closer to an action movie. Holly Hunter also appears here, but in such a minimal character that it seems inconceivable to me that she was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress.
Technically, the film has many qualities that we can point out: the cinematography is good and gives us an elegant look and good colors, so that the film does not look as old and dull as other films of the same year. The settings are excellent, in particular the offices and the paradise hotel in the Cayman Islands, where some beautiful and very colorful underwater scenes were filmed. The film passes through Memphis, Washington and other places, always with a careful eye on the choice of filming locations and the best framing. We don't have a show of visual and special effects, but the little that is done works very well. What definitely deserves a mention is the excellent soundtrack, based massively on the piano, and which is really effective in the task of accentuating the environment, deepening the suspense and gradually making things more exciting.

When paradise turns into nightmare
RELEASED IN 1993 and directed by Sydney Pollack based on John Grisham’s novel, "The Firm” is a crime drama/thriller starring Tom Cruise as a top Harvard grad lawyer who desperately wants to leave behind his working-class origins and takes a high-paying job at a firm in Memphis. He and his wife (Jeanne Tripplehorn) are ecstatic in their affluent new world until clues mount up that the firm has a sinister side. Gene Hackman plays his mentor at the firm while Ed Harris appears as an FBI agent. Holly Hunter, Hal Holbrook, David Strathairn and Gary Busey are also on hand.
This has long been one of my favorites from this genre. You really feel for McDeere (Cruise) & his wife as their utopia morphs into an inescapable hell. In the Washington DC scene you grasp how limited their choices are as they’re caught in a crossfire between the Mob and the FBI. McDeere must use his wits, his knowledge and “golden connections” for them to get out unscathed, if possible.
I always favored the piano score by Dave Grusin, which some have described as “bouncy.” While you could call it that, it has different tones depending on the sequence. For instance, during the closing city chase it’s driving and portentous. There’s also a melancholic component when suitable. The positive side of the piano score is that it makes the film timeless. Consider quality movies from that general era which were horribly dated by conventional scores, like “No Way Out” (1987).
THE FILM RUNS 2 hour, 34 minutes and was shot in Memphis, Tennessee; West Memphis, Arkansas; Cayman Islands; Washington DC; Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts.
GRADE: A/A-

I quite enjoyed this cyber-crime caper - the two stars have a chemistry that largely gets past the slightly fluffy dialogue and far-fetched plot. Catherine Zeta-Jones is, ostensibly, an insurance operative sent to help catch arch thief "Mac" (Sean Connery) once a valuable Rembrandt is taken from an seemingly impregnable high-rise office. It transpires that she has other fish to fry, however, and before long the poacher and the gamekeeper have a grand design to commit the creme de la creme of computer hacks without getting caught. It's at it's best during the heist planning stages, though sadly falls away a bit during a rather poorly constructed last twenty minutes that also introduces a romance that I found a bit cheesy. A pretty wooden Ving Rhames features - luckily, quite sparingly - as a duplicitous FBI agent but Maury Chaykin is really quite good as the odious, sexually ambiguous fixer "Conrad Greene". Worth a watch.

**Entrapment is a quality heist film with high stakes and great twists that overcomes its strange romantic moments.**
Entrapment showcases clever heists, stunning leads, and beautiful locations resulting in a well-crafted and entertaining heist film. The question of “Who is playing who?” constantly has the viewer guessing what twists could come and wondering what each character is really up to. The first half of the movie is stronger than the second. The planning of the first heist and its execution have great pacing and intrigue. After all that, the second half of the movie, which is supposed to be the bigger and more difficult heist, feels rushed and less satisfying. And let’s just say it, the awkward romance between Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones when he is nearly 40 years older and 69 at the time of Entrapment’s release is CRINGE. They could have taken the father/daughter or mentor/student relationship and kept it from being weird. All in all, Entrapment is a solid entry in the heist genre because of the effort, planning, and prep behind each robbery and great performances from the beautiful Catherine Zeta-Jones and the classic Sean Connery.

Millennium heist flick with Sean Connery, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Catherine’s derrière
Gin, an insurance agent with the curious skills of a cat burglar (Catherine Zeta-Jones), is sent by her employer (Will Patton) to wiggle into the company of aging British master-thief “Mac” MacDougal (Sean Connery). He tentatively accepts her but insists on arduous training before stealing a priceless Chinese mask from the well-guarded Bedford Palace. Their developing attraction and suspicion threaten to ruin their partnership but the lure of $8 billion from a heist at the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, maintains their alliance.
I usually don’t like heist flicks (because I’m not interested in the glorification of criminals), but the charisma of Connery and the beauty of Zeta-Jones keeps “Entrapment” (1999) interesting, not to mention the all-around stylish and kinetic filmmaking. Mac's hideout, an isolated castle in Scotland, is an unexpected attraction. The movie’s similar in tone to the contemporaneous “Eye of the Beholder” (1999), but without the pall of moody gloom and sleaze. The first 70 minutes are surprisingly entertaining before slumping for 20 minutes, but the film thankfully recovers for the thrilling and twisty last act.
“Entrapment” is famous for iconic stills of Catherine acrobatically maneuvering her way through a laser security system, which showcase her heightened derrière. She’s a beautiful woman and these sequences are certainly highlights. Yet you could hardly call them pornographic since she’s fully clothed and, while her outfit might be tight, it’s not exactly skintight.
Concerning the mild controversy over the dubious attraction of Mac (Connery) and Gin (Zeta-Jones), Connery was 68 when "Entrapment" was shot, but Mac is 60 in the story. Catherine was almost 30 during shooting, but looks & acts 35. So their age-difference is roughly 25 years, which isn’t anything unheard of.
Moreover, men are naturally attracted to younger women and Gin is a full-fledged whoa-man, not a teenager or even 20-something. Mac may have been 60, but he was charismatic, intelligent, virile and very much young at heart; so it’s no wonder Gin was attracted to him.
Lastly, being attracted to someone isn't the same as wanting to marry the person or even have sex. You can be naturally attracted to someone, but dismiss any further entanglement for numerous reasons, such as you're married, s/he is married, s/he is too young, s/he is too old, you prefer being single, etc.
The film runs 1 hour, 53 minutes and was shot in England, Scotland (Duart Castle & Eilean Donan Castle), Malaysia and New York City. Ving Rhames costars as Mac’s covert ally.
GRADE: B

**The human need to find meaning in the death of a loved one.**
I confess that I didn't really know what I was going to find when I started watching this movie. I wasn't expecting much, even though I was aware that it was a film about the September 11 attacks, and that it had some actors that I respect, and I like to see. Perhaps on purpose, the film begins in a heavy and slow way, and it is not very easy to go beyond the initial half hour.
However, the film improves a lot as we get to know the main character, a boy whose father died in the attacks and who is trying to deal with this loss in the best way possible. Whatever the age or situation, the loss of a parent is always dramatic. Believe me, dear reader, who is following me so patiently in these lines, I have been feeling it in my skin during the last few months, since I lost my beloved mother recently, and I believe that this personal circumstance had an influence on the way I ended up seeing myself in the boy, and in the emotional and moving way he tries to deal with grief and absence. He believes his father left him one last "treasure hunt" around a mysterious key, and he struggles to see meaning in his father's death, and in finding the key. It sounds childish, but allow me to be honest, I confess that I too, in the silence of my suffering and pain, felt and still feel the need to find some reason, some order in the midst of random chaos. Perhaps we, human beings, cannot accept that the people we love so much... simply die. And maybe we're right in not accepting just that...
By that, I mean that the horrible tragedy that happened in New York made sense in itself? No... evil is meaningless, but it doesn't need to make sense. What I refuse to think is that all those people died in vain. I believe that the American people, and all of us as a Western society, find meaning in everything that has happened, and we see those people as victims of unspeakable cruelty, which poignantly reminds us how vulnerable we are to the mind of a madman, vile and determined enough. I believe that each family member who lost someone there found a very personal meaning in their loss, and I hope this helped in the task of dealing with what happened.
Despite being very young, I liked the work developed by Thomas Horn. He did everything well, and he gives his character a naivety that is never childish or lacking in sense and intelligence, quite the opposite. Tom Hanks is, as is almost always the case, impeccable and gives the boy's father an aura of familiarity and sympathy of his own, which the actor knows how to use very well. Likewise, the charismatic and professional Sandra Bullock did a very interesting job in the role of the mother. Despite being nominated for an Oscar, I think Max Von Sydow has done much better and more complete work. Even so, I liked the way he was able to express himself and communicate without using a single word. Zoe Caldwell also did a good job, albeit in a much more restrained register than the others. On the other hand, I thought that John Goodman, Viola Davis and Jeffrey Wright are all very underused.
The film covers several places in New York, and it is not necessary to have visited the iconic city to recognize them very easily, and appreciate the friendly way in which the film takes advantage of them and gives them shine and beauty. The cinematography helped a lot at this point, with a very well worked light, color and brightness, and a good post-editing of the images.

Decent watch, might watch again, but I don't think I can whole-heartedly recommend it.
This "body swap" trope is dealing with both sex swapping and age swapping, but not parent-child swapping, so a lot of things come with that in this silly dirt comedy. I'm not even sure you could make this movie in 2020, there would be too much heat from online communities. Just a "30 year old man" hanging around high schoolers, let alone young women, let alone young women that attract attention like these rich little brats do.
The writing is a lot of plot convenience, not only do they not immediately end up in jail, there are neglectful parents, school faculty, and far too many people to know about the situation and believe it. With the ratio of people that accept it, she could just live openly as a "girl in a mans body".
I do enjoy that the medium in this version is a pair of earrings, they make sense and keep you from thinking about it for too long.
Weirdly, they do manage to shift focus by writing in weird distractions all over the place, and it surprisingly helps with transitions: Adam Sandler a a fake rastafarian (I think at one point they agreed to always play racist roles in each others movies), a weird, but positive, racial identity plot, and even a dance club sequence that felt rather unecessary.
Now the point is that it's a comedy, and it should be funny, and it is, at times, but using potentially serious issues as comedy really distracts from the "I'm just having a good time" of it all, even when it's legitimately funny.
It's not that it's all bad, or that I don't like it, or like I won't watch it again, eventually, but there are a lot of movies to watch, and no one is missing anything from skipping this one.

**Bachelorette gone wrong!**
This kind of girls night out flicks are not fun anymore. Yet it is hard to ignore them from watching. So I watched it not expecting anything special out of it. And I did not get any. But... it was okayish. Moreover, Scarlett Johansson was the main reason I wanted to watch it. You can't always do superhero, action films. This is something offbeat. Often need to take this path, no to fail miserably, but to relax from the mainstream. So this was enjoyable, but not by all.
It is like the female version of 'Hangover'. Five friends go to Miami for one of theirs bachelorette party. It's supposed to be fun without any rules, but a disaster strikes in the early and makes them to cover all the evidence. The night turns their worst nightmare ever. How they manage to come out of it are the remaining film that revealed with a twist at the end.
The reception was as expected, but it was not that bad if you are seeking only a timepass. It ended like there could be a sequel, but now it seems very unlikely. One of the issues with the film is it was so traditional narrative. With so many jokes repeated from other flicks. The majority won't approve that. As far as I think it is watch and forget kind of film. An average film. Disliking it does not change what it is!
_6/10_

The Australian accent is one that is very hard to nail down, I know that. But getting it wrong is just so bloody aggravating. Simple solutions:
A) If the character doesn't have to be Australian, then just don't make them Australian.
B) Just hire an actual Australian! Hollywood is full of the bastards!
C) Hire one of the like... 3 actors who can actually do the job outside of these two options.
Kate McKinnon is not one of those 3 actors.
...Oh and also _Rough Night_ was not very good.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

I went to see this alone lol and I am a straight man and let me tell you I laughed out loud several times the characters were loveable and very welcoming one of the years best comedies ' I know that's not saying much ' but I truly enjoyed it and do recommend you go see it male or female you should enjoy this movie like I said I got a good long laugh try it enjoy,

Very disappointed with this movie. Agonizing to watch so much so that I couldn't make it past the first thirty minute. Boring and sooooo very slow!!

Generic thriller, with a cast that deserve to be doing better. Instead they are stuck in a predictable, silly film thinly wrapped around a poorly executed premise.
Meh.

Stunning, truly stunning.
As I pressed play on 'Togo' and began watching the initial scenes unfold, I was expecting a rehash/retread on Disney's previous films on this sort - e.g. 'White Fang' or 'Iron Will'. Those are good in their own right, but this 2019 film - which is about a true story - takes things to another dimension.
It tugs at the heartstrings profusely, from the first scene to the very last. It's superbly written, with there being a fair amount of surprises in terms of how the story unfolds. It's shot beautifully and put together, via the set design etc., excellently, while the score is magnificent.
Then you have the dogs, who are insanely charming throughout - especially, of course, the star that is Togo (Diesel). There's many a moment with him that produce all the feelings, from joy to sorrow to everything in between. The dogs are great and incredibly adorable.
Away from all of that, you have an outstanding performance from Willem Dafoe. Before seeing this, the most I remember of him is his role in 'Mr. Bean's Holiday'. This now takes over in those regards, it's a brilliant job done by Dafoe. Julianne Nicholson merits praise, also.
What a film. Not what I was expecting whatsoever, in the nicest possible way. Glad to see it has also been highly rated online. A must-watch!

Decent watch at best, probably won't watch again, and can't really recommend.
I'm a big fan of Joey King, but she wasn't really in a positive to save the movie.
The production value is obviously there, the effects are even good, and there are several intense moments that should set the atmosphere, but I just couldn't bring myself to care.
The writing has to be to blame. It's 4-5 shallow, empty characters with just enough flavor to tell them apart, and I just can't care about them.
The movie focuses on the subtly of it all, the growing madness that Slender Man instills in his victims without properly building the tension or showing the characters slowly losing it, which would have given good actors the ability to save it. Instead they use a lot of "it happened offscreen" or sudden cuts to show a lose of time, and we get a character suddenly looking confused instead of taking the audience on a journey with the character.
Maybe it's not the writing, and maybe the editor just didn't know what they were doing? "What are all these long dramatic series in here? This is so boring! *cut* Eh, they'll get the point."
With all the options out there, I just don't think this is worth your time. I could tell you to just watch the 3rd act, and you'd probably get as much out of this movie as you're going to get from the beginning.

Idiot Stupid Dumb movie for Dumb Stupid Idiots.
_Final rating:★ - Of no value. Avoid at all costs._

See the original, not this one.

Not nearly so bad as I had been led to believe, though even I had to question a lot of the choices that were made dialogue-wise. A lot of the lines were confronting-ly bad. Otherwise, I found it inoffensive. Perhaps my lowered expectations and non-theatrical experience is the reason for this.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

"Army of the Dead was far from surpassing any expectations, but amid its several issues, Zack Snyder actually created a rather interesting post-apocalyptic world. With Matthias Schweighöfer taking on two of the most significant roles in filmmaking - director and leading actor - Army of Thieves feels more like a character spin-off than an actual prequel to an apparently new franchise.
In that regard, the passionate protagonist, Dieter, is compelling enough to carry most of the stylized movie. Matthias delivers a fun, engaging performance that, unfortunately, is partially damaged by the excessive, dull jokes. The rest of the team follows incredibly cliche, forgettable archetypes, even though I can't really fault Nathalie Emmanuel's (F9) interpretation.
Doing a prequel to an original zombie film with no zombies instantly drops the excitement levels, but the heist sequences are reasonably entertaining. Hans Zimmer and Steve Mazzaro's score definitely makes this movie feel much more epic and emotionally powerful than it truly is. Overall, Army of Thieves overextends its stay, and the safe-opening scenes get less and less exciting with a gradual lack of creativity taking over each robbery.
In the end, I admit that this universe has some potential, but so far, I'm still waiting for a flick I can genuinely love and support."
Rating: C

_The 6th Day_ is a **great** title for a movie about man-made lifeforms. The movie never really lives up to that, I 100% understand the criticisms it received when it was released, but I actually did enjoy watching it.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

If you really believe that then you should clone yourself while you're still alive.
Vilified when it was released, one of the small handful of films that came at the end of Arnold Schwarzenegger's film career before he went into politics, The 6th Day, it was argued, was a good cause for Arnold to retire from film. Yet viewing it now on its own chaotic sci-fi terms, it's a surprisingly brisk and enjoyable picture.
Directed by Roger Spottiswoode, it's a futuristic collage of outrageous set-pieces and thought provoking thematics. Plot has Arnie as an ex-fighter pilot who discovers he has been illegally cloned, and thus he embarks on a mission of carnage and high paced machismo in a bid to get his identity back whilst exposing the evil corporation at the core of such nastiness. So, two Arnie's for the price of one then!
It's not a plot that would hold up under close scrutiny, but then is that what we go into a Arnold Schwarzenegger action movie for? Quite. With some nifty surprises, kinetic action and an ending of some considerable chilling substance, The 6th Day is classic popcorn munching fodder. No it's not in the top tier of Arnie movies, and no it's hardly shaking the foundations of sci-fi cinema, but sometimes comfort food sci-fi has its own rewards for an undemanding occasion. 6.5/10

Decent if not also contrived quasi-political thriller (the politics of it is rather thin and safe, so neither side will be offended) with each segment were okay though the Forest Whitaker one was the most ridiculous. Also not sure if there was meant to be one with the news team, and Sigourney Weaver's talent was utterly wasted.
All that said, the stunt and car chase sequences in the final act was great and a good choice more or less having Dennis Quaid being the lead of the ensemble. This probably makes for a fine weekend viewing even if the pacing, that is the jumping from one POV to the other, never quite worked but still found it entertaining. **3.5/5**

**Keeping Up with the Joneses isn't bad, but isn't anything to get excited about either.**
The cast of this film drew me to this movie. Jon Hamm and Gal Gadot as spies was an excellent decision. Not to mention, Zach Galifianakis and Isla Fisher are hilarious in any movie. But somehow, even with the directing of an experienced comedy director, Keeping Up with the Joneses couldn't impress. There were some funny parts, but the movie overall was predictable, unimaginative, and at times just plain annoying. That might be a little harsh, but the quality of star power keeps the movie from slipping entirely into disappointment, but overall, Keeping Up with the Joneses is a forgettable comedy with a spy twist.

**Curiosity led them to involve in a greater danger.**
It was the other Zack Galifianakis film that I watched back to back. 'Mastermind' was a fun crime film based on the true event, but this one was purely fictional action-comedy. Once again the casting looked so good. Particularly Gal Gadot, her involving in it after becoming Wonder Woman is a hype. So anyone to anticipating some great action sequences is normal, but it was average on that section.
First of all, it is nothing to do with the 2009 film 'The Jonese'. The characters seem quite resembling, like between and about the neighbors, but totally different plot. When a new couple move into a vacant house, the one in the neighborhood suspect there's something going with them. After all the efforts, when they come to know the couple's true identity, they're already involved in their undertaking and now cooperating is the only way out. So how it ends with their entanglement takes the film to its final stage.
Comedy scenes were good. Not that much clichéd, so one can have a decent fun watching it, especially with a low expectation. Both the lead women were hot, despite not much cleavage in the film. There are some unexpected parts too, but as a comedy, it was much better. And as an action & spy film, it doesn't do much to impress. Overall, a passable film, particularly comedy wise. So if you prefer it, then it should be on that merit.
_6/10_

Beautiful animation. A slow pace and lack of character development limit this film slightly, but it is still a touching story that is a good addition to Shinkai's filmography. I really do not know why his films are always so focused on characters with such big age gaps...
Score: 70% 👍
Verdict: Good

The Garden of Words poetically symbolises the tranquility and loneliness of rain. “A faint clap of thunder. Even if the rain comes not, I will stay here, together with you”. Walking the path of life is no easy feat. The appropriate metaphysical footwear must be utilised for every type of emotional terrain we encounter. Sandals for joy. Wellies for sadness. Sneakers for rage. Yearning to overcome our rational, or irrational, fears so that we can “walk” again. Teenage student Takao, an aspiring shoemaker, attempted to perform such a generous offer for Yukari. A mysterious woman he socialises with in the dense thickened foliage of a Japanese garden experiencing torrential downpour. Two souls of differing youth encompassing an identical level of maturity. Yukari avoiding her career to snack of delicious chocolate and consume canned beer, whilst Takao solidly working throughout his summer break.
The two share a common trait. Seclusion. The melancholy of isolation is one that evokes a rainfall of sympathy, and director/writer Shinkai embodies all of nature’s complexities to portray these wandering individuals. The ferocity of rain portraying both the characters’ sadness whilst shielding them from the rest of society. The pale green shading of the summery foliage producing a reassuring aura of tranquility within the garden. Yet it’s Shinkai’s usage of Man’yōshū poetry that truly captivates, adding a traditional authenticity to the Japanese central romantic narrative. With “love” being traditionally written as “lonely sadness”, Shinkai honed in on the deprivation of companionship. When both characters see each other as salvational assets as opposed to romantic interests, it provides a subtle layer of maturity that is commonly found in Shinkai’s writing. Love is never simple, yet nature finds a way to pull people together. The Garden of Words itself is that motif.
As expected, the animation was gorgeous. Faultless. Combining hand-drawn animation with rotoscoping to create meticulously constructed scenery, assisting in the world building of their blossoming friendship. Less detail is given to facial expressions, with much of the attentive focus towards the environmental backdrop, which occasionally leaves a vacuous emotional complexion. Almost expressionless on occasion. Not enough to deter from the character building, but worth noting.
Shinkai’s unfortunate issue here is with the runtime. It’s short. Absurdly short. At only forty six minutes in length, the character development between Takao and Yukari is often rushed with no emotional simmering. This became drastically noticeable during the climax when Takao discovers the reasoning behind Yukari‘s work avoidance. The exquisitely mature metaphors and symbolic imagery were somewhat diminished for a typical “anime ending”. What I mean by that, is the sole purpose in attempting to make the viewers shed a tear. The erratic framing, the J-pop music and the explosion of emotion is typical work from Shinkai, yet it never suited the preceding scenario. Whilst it nearly, oh so nearly, worked for me (I held back that tear!), it fell short due to the complacent storytelling. Motohiro Hata’s vocal talent behind the theme song “Rain” was exceptional though, almost replicating Takao’s personality. So I’ll give some leniency...
The Garden of Words is poetry. Visually and literarily. With gorgeously vibrant animation and themes of maturity, Shinkai has crafted a wonderfully organic story that depicts loneliness with a hint of empathy. If only he was able to stretch it out for another half an hour, we could’ve witnessed a masterpiece in the making.