**A good biographical film about one of the greatest American painters of the 20th century.**
I'm not a deep connoisseur of Mexican painting, but I don't think I'm saying heresy if I consider Frida Kahlo the most international and well-known artist in the country, the most notable of Mexican painters. She was considered a surrealist, but she didn't really agree with that because she didn't paint dreams. In fact, I agree with the artist: what she left us, in powerful and dramatic canvases, is a portrait of her life, what she lived, felt and saw.
Kahlo's paintings look simple. She was not an academic, coming out of a very expensive and elegant school. She painted with feeling, with an art that was her own, not a copy of others, nor an attempt to follow any school or any master. She painted with simplicity, emotion and drama, in what we can call a “naïf style”. She was married, in a very tempestuous relationship, to the painter Diego Rivera, but he, although more technically perfect, is not as good as she is because he lacks in emotion and sincerity what he has left in political activism. In fact, what I don't like about Rivera's art is the constant apology for communist ideas. Art and propaganda are different things, although they can be harmonized.
The film, directed in a very elegant and competent way by Julie Taymor, invites us to know the artist's life from her youth until her death. It begins shortly before she suffers the accident that will weaken her for the rest of her life (something the film does not tell us – and it is a pity – is that she had polio as a child). The film focuses on her relationship with Rivera and, later, on her affair with the exiled Leon Trotsky. However, and as the film makes clear, the artist was bisexual and had a lot of extramarital relationships with men and women, like her husband, who had a variety of lovers.
I dare say that this is one of the most solid cinematographic works of Salma Hayek's career so far. The actress gave us a powerful, intense and personality-filled performance. Beside her, Alfred Molina also gives us a strong and charismatic work. Geoffrey Rush, an actor who rarely lets us down, was not so good as the disgraced Russian revolutionary. I found it unconvincing, and the romantic relationship with Kahlo sounds artificial, more like a whim than a powerful attraction between characters. The film also has cameos by António Banderas, Edward Norton and others, but they were misused and accessories.
Technically, the highlight goes to the cinematography, crafted with a lot of creativity: I cannot fail to highlight, for example, the scenes in the Aztec ruins, or that scene where Kahlo is treated in the hospital, with a graphic animation that remembers the artist's paintings. The insertion of the paintings is very well executed, so that we can clearly understand the connection between Kahlo's art and life. The soundtrack, with various themes alluding to traditional Mexican music, does an excellent job, and the recreation of historical times and environments was also done with great care and discretion.

Live and Let Die is a brilliant use of a new Bond (Roger Moore) and an iconic title song for one of the best Bonds there is.

When I first watched this opening outing for Roger Moore in the "007" role, I wasn't very impressed. Now, when I watch it though, I appreciate more the sophisticated and subtle approach that the star brought to the role. Gone is much of the chauvinism of the Connery days, replaced by a more subtle, humorous, playful style whilst still delivering a good adventure film. This time, following the deaths of three other agents, "Bond" finds himself investigating a dodgy Caribbean ruler "Katanga" (Yaphet Kotto) who is using the prophetic skills of his tarot reader "Solitaire" (a rather beautiful but simpering, charmless, Jane Seymour) and a great deal of heroin to dominate the global narcotics market. It's got it's fair share of gadgets and one of the most memorable opening (funeral) scenes of any movie I've ever seen. Geoffrey Holder is crackingly menacing as "Baron Samedi" - the master of voodoo; and Julius Harris as the almost indestructible "Tee Tee" - complete with a basic, but dangerous artificial hand. It's dark, gritty and sinister and well worth watching. Can't say I'm the biggest fan of the Wings theme tune, though - I prefer the knock 'em dead power ballads...

This 007 film aged very well.
007 follows in the footsteps of three prior agents who were assassinated.
There's a lot of "jive" in this one, since this is the one where the villain is black, and he uses mostly black helpers, so the white James Bond really sticks out.
And thus we get a lot more comedy here.
There's a bit of a condescending attitude towards Harlem here, and too much respect for the few who are the criminals of Harlem, but this is a "comedy" 007 adventure.
The beautiful Solitaire is the love interest, and there's a lot of belief in the supernatural here. That's part of the "condescending" part.
This movie was very bad in 1973, but it aged well, because in 1973 the "red neck sheriff" was such a trite cliche that one had to groan in 1973.
But today, after all the movies that have tamed down the image of the red neck lawman, it's a fresh bit of comedy, and that's why this movie has aged well. It comes close to breaking into the top ten 007 films of all time due to its lack of negativity that has been the Hollywood formula since about 1965.

By my clock, this era started with Diamonds are Forever... the era of the Silly Bond.
But Diamonds are Forever was a Connery Bond and it kind of sucked because of it.
So... Live and Let Die is the first of the GOOD silly Bond movies.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm on team Connery. Team Connery all the way... but Live and Let Die is still a GREAT 007 film despite the total change in mood and persona.
It moved away from the heartless assassin to pick up a more comedic and Fx driven fair that worked better for Moore.
And because it is a new 007, the fish out of water setting works to drive it home. It's not the first time 007 set foot in the United States, but it is Harlem in 1973 and it is The Big Easy, and these are places that a white British man with an Oxford education would be a HORRIBLE person to act as a spy in. He's going to stick out like a sore thumb, and he does...
... and that is probably why they choose it as a setting to usher in Moore's era Bond. Because Moore was going to be different. He was the fish out of water in the franchise, and the setting helps drive it home.
But, who cares, it was silly Bond, but it was FUN Bond. It was just fun in a different way than Connery was. But it was still fun, and fun is still entertaining.

Roger Moore’s fun and colorful debut as 007
Agent 007 (Roger Moore) travels from Harlem to the Caribbean to Louisiana to stop a black heroin mogul (Yaphet Kotto) fortified with a multifarious organization and a lovely tarot card reader (Jane Seymour).
This was Moore’s dynamic debut as Bond. He did 7 films for the franchise in 13 years from 1973-1985. The tone of “Live and Let Die” is similar to Sean Connery’s final canon Bond flick, “Diamonds Are Forever” (1971). Moore’s stint is my favorite run in the series with all seven films being kinetic, amusing, scenic and just all-around entertaining. There’s not one stinker in the bunch and they were all profitable at the box office.
Aside from the picturesque globetrotting, “Live and Let Die” features several colorful characters beyond those already noted: The metal-armed Tee Hee (Julius Harris), the chortling voodoo minion Baron Samedi (Geoffrey Holder) and redneck Sheriff JW Pepper (Clifton James). On the female front, Seymour is young & cute while Gloria Hendry is impressively fit as Rosie. The head-turning Madeline Smith has a small role. In addition, there are several memorable thrilling parts, like the amusing airport sequence, Bond using crocogators as stepping stones, the great bayou boat chase and the closing train cab brouhaha.
As far as the movie being “racist,” as SJW’s whine, the character Agent Quarrel Jr. (Roy Stewart) blows that whole eye-rolling idiot-theory.
The film runs 2 hours, 1 minute and was shot in Manhattan, Jamaica and Louisiana (New Orleans & the bayous) with additional work done in England.
GRADE: B+

So. Much. Damn. Fun. _The Return of the Living Dead_ always takes me back to being a teenager. In a good way.
_Trash is taking off her clothes again._
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Another version of the movie 'Twister'. Not because both the movies are about tornadoes, but takes place in a similar fashion where a group of twister/storm analyzers/chasers goes after their thing only to come out in a messed-up state. Forget the 'Twister', lets talk about this film. It had better effects, but that did not give the visuals like the natural occurrence, mostly they over-used it. I can call it a display for commercial purpose than reality, that's what Hollywood is famous for, isn't it?
The fun part was, the tornado(es) behaved like it had a soul and conscious like any living organism. 'Final Destination 5' was one of the best digital 3D movie at that time, when it comes to the awesome pop-ups and very disappointed with this film which was crafted by the same director.
The plus point was, it mildly entertains with a merely good pace of narration. Definitely it is not a category-A movie, if you want, you can say it because of the actors. The real reason is the performances from the cast was not noticeable. If one, one person had a strong hold up on his role the movie might had clinched its success. Due to CGI rule, actors are not getting a better scope for their characters. That's very sad, but true. You can watch it for entertainment or timepass, but not expecting seriously.
5.5/10

**A nostalgic film, aimed at those who lived through that time and those experiences, but which was not intended for other audiences and ended up fatally forgotten.**
I'm not sure what Richard Linklater was thinking when he decided to make a comedy film about the last day of school for a group of teenagers in 1976. I've never lived in the US, but I've noticed that American culture gives a big relevance to High School, and that these educational institutions are very different from their counterparts in my country. Around here, this level of education is just an antechamber with two exits: the job market, with all its hardships, and University. Perhaps Linklater was nostalgic about his own teenage past? If that's the case, I completely understand him, even if I don't really miss my time at High School.
The script is based on the nonsense of teenagers, which correspond to the stereotype that we always find in teen movies: they want alcohol, drugs, sex and the perverse fun that comes from pranks done, in a more or less consensual way, to freshmen. This will work very well with teenagers. For other audiences, it's debatable. And since today's audiences don't find it amusing to see a film where a group of teenagers is looking to get drunk, high or have sex, I understand why this film has fallen into oblivion, where it perhaps deserves to remain.
The big point where this film manages, somehow, to have value, is the professional and very focused way in which most of the cast worked. Despite being a weak film, there is no doubt that it represented an opening of doors for the careers of many of the actors. Matthew McConaughey is a clear case: this film was the film debut of the actor who, many years later, would win an Oscar for “Dallas Buyers Club”. Ben Affleck is another similar case: the actor had done some minor work, mostly for TV, before entering this film. Mila Jovovich, actress and model, also didn't have a notable career before this film. In addition to these names, the film features actors such as Jason London, Adam Goldberg, Rory Cochrane and Wiley Wiggins.
On a technical level, the film only stands out for the quality of its soundtrack, which brings together a kind of collection of great songs from the late 70s. Nostalgics will smile and recognize Bob Dylan, Alice Cooper, KISS, Aerosmith etc., names that we still consider illustrious today, with songs that almost everyone knows. But let's be frank: a lot of good actors, an excellent soundtrack and a massive dose of nostalgia are enough to turn this film into something really worthwhile? Personally, I don't think so.

**_The last day of school in 1976_**
In the Austin, Texas, area, several youths complete their last day at school and celebrate through the night.
"Dazed and Confused" failed at the box office in 1993-94, but has gone on to achieve a deserved cult status. It's one of the best high school comedy-dramas, along with "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" (1982). The difference between these two is that "Fast Times" contains more goofy antics whereas "Dazed" is more of a docudrama with amusing flashes. In other words, although "Fast Times is generally realistic, excepting the over-the-top parts with Spicoli, "Dazed and Confused" is more like a slice from real life.
What makes "Dazed" work so well is that it gets the LOOK of the mid-to-late 70s just right, particularly the hair & clothing styles, although Slater (Rory Cochrane) seems like a nod to 90's grunge.
Secondly, the actors pull off the material. A large part of the film's success is the excellent casting choices. You get a few up-and-comers here: Matthew McConaughey, Milla Jovovich and Ben Affleck, along with one or two of lesser note (in regards to future success), e.g. Jason London and Parker Posey.
All the standard school archetypes are present: the jock who parties on the side, the bullies, the hot sister and her little long-haired brother, the black dude, the sexy Lib teacher, the streetfighter, the cool guys, the geekier crowd, the babes, the guy who graduated years ago but still hangs around, the mentors & mentees, etc.
Then you have the standard school experiences like setting up parties at a friend's houses when the parents are away, keg parties, running from bullies, dealing with coaches & teachers, flirting, the possibility of sex, hanging out, meaningless conversations, fights, smoking pot at school or in your friend's bedroom, etc.
Like "Fast Times," "Dazed and Confused" is a joy to watch because it successfully takes you back to the high school years with all its joys & agonies.
Some don't like it because it's more of a slice-of-life than a plot-driven, contrived story. The plot here is simple: It's the last day of school and the youths want to celebrate. If they can't do it at their friend's house they'll find a place at a park or local hangout, but they WILL party. The rest of the film involves their interactions within this context.
I've heard some complain that the movie conveys a terrible message. What message? There is no message. The message is that school's out and it's time to celebrate! Besides, there are a few positive points that can be mined from the proceedings: the arrogant bully gets what's coming, make a stand and fight when you have to (even if you get beat up), ultra-tight pants must be put on with pliers, be true to yourself, etc. But, really, this isn't a flick to look for deep messages, its simple purpose is to take you back to the school years (in this case, 1976) and all the fun & pain thereof.
Aside from those already mentioned, Michelle Burke stands out on the female front as Jodi, along with Joey Lauren Adams as Simone (she has such a beautiful, soothing voice). Then there's redhead Marissa Ribisi as Cynthia.
No review of "Dazed and Confused" would be complete without noting the excellent soundtrack. You get some great rock/metal of the 70s like "Sweet Emotion," "School's Out," "Stranglehold," "Do You Feel Like We Do," "Love Hurts," "Paranoid," "Rock & Roll Hootchie Coo," "Rock & Roll All Nite," "Slow Ride," "Cherry Bomb," "Tuesday's Gone" and many more.
The film runs 1 hour, 42 minutes, and was shot in the Austin, Texas, area.
GRADE: A-

**The final day of the school, but it's just the beginning!**
I won't lie that I watched it after I saw 'Everybody Wants Some!!' from the same director. Because I liked that film and I heard that was a spiritual sequel to this one. So there goes my reason. I usually love the 80s and 90s teen films, you can't compare them to what they make now. The film was from the edge of before my generation began, but I'm very related that time than the other end. So I felt very familiar and enjoyed it thoroughly.
The film focused on the final day of the high school. It opened in the afternoon during the final class and followed by night where a party was arranged by the seniors that does not take off after their parents suspected it. Between the freshmen and the seniors, a tradition follows. Some of them escape, but those who got caught, struggles to way out. Not everyone, some make it their best time in high school. So who gets what and how everyone's night turns out revealed in the remaining.
We can see some of the big names of the today's cinema in this 23 year old film. Matthew McCanaughey, Milla Jovovich, Ben Affleck and many more. Though the film never focused one particular character, it was neutral and stayed that way till the end. But it told the story of the final day of the high school about the individuals and their intentions. You do not have to be a youngster to enjoy it, it will work for everybody. So I hope you watch it, especially before to try 'Everybody Wants Some'.
_7/10_

Really solid sophomore effort by Linklater.
Loved his Hitchcock homage, especially.

**for so long its not true**
I only saw it once. I dare not watch this again. For some reason it was playing at a dingy burlesque-haunted cinema on old Granville Street in Vancouver on a Sunday afternoon in 1993 where wasted men usually shuffle in to deposit their sperm. (Not enough credit goes to internet porn for cleaning up the streets). Richard Linkater wasn't a story at the time. The guy who made Slackers. The bastard love child of Jim Jarmusch and Chrissie Hynde for all I knew. No clue he'd be the chosen one to eventually deliver us to _Boyhood_. I went in with a friend on a lark and floated out on a psilocybin cloud of joy. I was awestruck. I know these guys! I wanted to endlessly sing its praises but my friend didn't get the same charge out of it. (Although months later at a Christmas party of wayward misfits, he couldn't stop playing the sound track). Maybe it was me. But this was exactly how I remembered High School in the 70's. Was I hallucinating the whole thing? Indeed I was stoned much of the time, but all that was brilliantly accounted for. All that was missing was a bit of Pink Floyd and a whole lot of Led Zeppelin as alluded to in the title. _Dazed & Confused_ isn't merely the best movie about High School in the 1970's. It is the best movie about High School, and the best movie about the 1970's, and perhaps the best movie about male adolescence (yes, yes, IMHO, of course, what else). I dare not watch it again for what if I burst the bubble of such virgin memories to forever spoil my love and admiration for it. Or was it the dingy cinema I have fond nostalgic feelings for? Something. I'll have to watch it again, probably soon, once Linklater finally gets the grand red-carpet treatment along with the golden trinkets he so long deserves.

The strong humour makes up for the ultra-thin premise.
Hugh Grant (George) and Sandra Bullock (Lucy) are excellent together, they share solid chemistry. I like Grant's performance the most, bringing a likeable but flawed vibe to his character. Bullock is good in her role, too.
It probably is a forgettable film, but I do enjoy the humour. It keeps things pacing well, at least until the third act where the plot kinda ends with a whimper. Nothing else standouts, especially the supporting cast.
They could've/should've shaved twenty minutes or so off the run time to keep it fresher, but all in all I'd deem 'Two Weeks Notice' as one that's worth viewing.

**Breck Eisner directs one of the eeriest, most suspenseful, and exceptional zombie thrillers that stand out in the horde of zombie plagues.**
The Crazies isn’t a typical zombie film as the infected don’t become mindless shamblers. Instead, these kind farmers and mild-mannered townspeople become emotionless and murderous killers using whatever weapons they can find to expedite the slaughter. The suspense starts slow in the early minutes of the film but consistently builds to a fevered anxiety as the military attempts to quarantine the outbreak trapping the survivors inside with the crazed infected. Timothy Olyphant’s performance as the local sheriff trying to keep his family alive against a town of former friends and neighbors turned insane murderers is outstanding and genuine. The Crazies cast does an excellent job building buy-in and investment in their characters, making the audience actually care when one meets their brutal fate. This film is a striking and vicious thriller that belongs at the top of any zombie list.

Great watch, will watch again, and do recommend.
I have no idea how I went 10 years without seeing this one.
It shows you my frame of mind when this was the most uplifting thing of my day.
This is a great survivalist movie: an unknown infection occurs in a small rural town, and the government is closing in to secure and "decontaminate" the area. And get nothing wrong, "our" government will contain, secure, and then protect, in that order.
Timothy Olyphant and Radha Mitchell kill in this, they're great start to finish. Joe Anderson does steal the show a few times though, really embodying the spirit of a rage filled person. Danielle Panabaker is the reason this got on my radar at all, but she is sort of "emotional teen girl", and I feel she's too big an actor for that, so it wasn't my favorite part.
The writing is well done, in a progressive manner that makes me think that we really missed out on a "The Crazies" videogame. The thing that makes this the infection more interesting than the average rabid / zombie movie, is that these infected are still "smart". Now they're uncontrollably driven to kill, but they can do it by car / rifle / coordinated attack, and even an overwhelming mob. Hell they can even set traps.
So you're basically fighting insane people on PCP. The infection effect seems to differ based on how inclined you are to kill people. There were a couple that managed to hide until they came across someone they had motivation to kill before infection. Some people are just confused, like they don't understand why they're doing what they're doing. Others "round up da' boys" and go a hooting and hollering. The range of behaviors keep you on your toes.
On top of the infected, you have the military cleansing the area who (in theory) are still in their right mind, and no idea what is the infection vector.
I really enjoyed this, it did remind me of "Mom and Dad" which has a similar infection, but the psychological motivations are much clearer and have a very nice built in complexity.

I didn’t have much expectations for this film, other than thinking it would be a low budget, easygoing horror film. How wrong I was! Not only it is a decent horror film but also scary at times. Yeah, it certainly is not a 10 out of 10 horror film, for sure, but it’s certainly worth watching.
Would I watch it again? Yeah! Would I make my friends watch it? Absolutely!

Boo-yah, indeed.
Directed by Breck Eisner and written by Scott Kosar & Ray Wright, The Crazies (2010) is a remake of the 1973 film directed by George A. Romero. It stars Timothy Olyphant, Rhada Mitchell and Joe Anderson. The plot sees a toxic spillage make its way into a small American town's water system and turns some of the locals into marauding maniacs.
Eisner's movie is that rare old thing these days, that of the horror remake that greatly improves upon the original. That might annoy some Romero purists, but the truth is, is that his original film really isn't that great to begin with. Thus it's ripe for a remake, whilst acknowledging that a certain weariness creeps into our thoughts at the seemingly never ending line of horror remakes getting churned out by a Hollywood running out of ideas. Hell I will even venture that we have seen all this before, nothing in this "Crazies" will have the horror faithful rushing out to tell their buddies about some overtly cranial splendour piece they have just watched, but this is a very effective horror piece, taut and tense at times, at others sick and splendidly disgusting. Eisner may not be a "Craven", or for sure no "Romero", but he executes the material with gusto and shows a knack for knowing how to make the material work.
The film is structured over three parts. Character formations in the little town of the delightfully small Americana sounding Ogden Marsh, which leads into the infected going doolally. Then it's the army attempting to get things under control. Lastly it's the the fall out as our brave survivors, erm, try to survive and make sense of what is happening. Eisner and his writers even get away with not fleshing out the principal characters. We know Olyphant's Sheriff is a toughie, and that his pregnant wife, Mitchell, is equally resourceful, while the deputy played by the film's standout performer, Joe Anderson, we know is loyal and sharp with a rifle. Who cares about flesh on these bones, let the crazies after them and see how they cope. Where the writers score plus points is with the portrait of a world losing its humanity. The sick are rounded up and contained, nobody cares enough to try and help them, while those sent to restore order, to protect the people, are as dangerous as those bleeding from the eyes and ears. There's madness everywhere.
With memorable blood pumping scenes, bona fide suspense and metaphorical smarts in the writing, this is one damn fine remake shocker. 7.5/10

A genuinely super film about a family of small time chancers who survive on their wits on the verge of poverty. There is something almost Fagin-esque about their behaviour, but in best Robin Hood tradition we always feel that their small-scale criminal activities are carried out as a result of necessity than from any need or wish to do anyone else any harm. They take in a little girl off the street which stretches their already meagre resources but without rancour or complaint and we skip through a series of events, some beautifully poignant some rather more serious. The contrast between the three generations of the "Shibata" family living in a space no bigger than an average garage compared with some of the wealth and Japanese opulence surrounding them is expertly delivered by a strong cast - especially the youngsters - under the careful direction of Hirozaku Koreeda - and makes for a thought-provoking two hours of cinema.

'Terrifier' is a mixed bag.
The gory stuff is done to a decent degree, even if those moments are a bit too few and far between. Art the Clown certainly looks and acts the part, even if I wanted more from the character - giving him a voice would've made him more creepy in my opinion, rather than complete silence.
This 2016 flick was made on a tiny budget, something that is very evident throughout, but given that you do have to hold appreciation for the filmmakers. I will say, though, that the level of acting is iffy and the dialogue is rather terrible, at least for the most part. The former is understandable given the aforementioned, though the latter is a negative.
I am anticipating better from 'Terrifier 2' and 'Terrifier 3', given the presumption of a larger budget and all that comes with that. I still respect this original attempt, but I personally wouldn't class it as anything that is strongly worth watching.

Terrifier proves you don’t need a big budget to make a movie — just $35,000, a bucket of fake blood, and a clown with the worst dentist in town.

"Tara" (Jenna Kanell) and best pal "Dawn" (Catherine Corcoran) have had a bit too much to drink to drive when they encounter a rather melancholy looking clown. The latter woman makes some snide remarks before both revert to a pizza place to try and sober up. Guess who comes in? So far it's all a bit benign, but when the girls return to their car to discover a flat tyre and "Tara" desperate for a pee, a nearby building proves tempting for it's plumbing - but of course it's not what it appears nor is our rather sad friend anywhere near done with his (or her) evening's work. As slasher's go, this is actually quite fun and there's a bit of menace aided well by the paucity of dialogue from our calculating antagonist. Sadly, though, that cannot be extended into the characterisations of the two women who just annoyed pretty much from the get go. Loud, obnoxious and capable of some of the most stupid decisions ever committed to celluloid. Things get even more preposterous when sister "Victoria" (Samantha Scaffidi) turns up to collect the stranded pair and proves to be even more dumb than her sibling when it comes to risk taking and wandering about a derelict old building at night - all whilst the radio has been relaying warnings of a marauding slasher about town. It's mercifully short, which does help keep the pace tight but the acting from those with speaking parts is pretty woeful, as it the writing that gives them their lines - and by the end, I was very, very, much in the corner of a baddie who ought to have been left to get on with the job!

_Terrifier_ had a lot of hype behind it with its very successful sequel hitting theaters this month, and unfortunately it did not translate to a pleasurable viewing experience. Before I jump into my criticisms of the film, the on-screen quality of visuals and effects were top notch for a budget of a mere $25,000. It is amazing what this crew was able to do with their conditions and everyone involved should be proud. With that being said, the limited budget does not give excuses for a poor script, dialogue and performances. This movie had a tremendous amount of cringe with perverted dialogue that seemed as if a middle schooler wrote it. The performances were campy, but not in a good way. In classic horror films the camp has a sense of nostalgia and a sign of the times but with this modern film with kills and elements that are taking themselves somewhat seriously, it just comes off as bad. The actor behind Art did do a fantastic job though. His portrayal of a mute killer who communicates to his victims with mimes and clown tricks was funny and chilling at the same time. The plot on its face did not have much depth to it. It boiled down to people in the wrong place at the wrong time. There was no added depth or lore to why these events were happening, although I did enjoy how each character who was tragically murdered had a connection the plot and were not just some random people introduced and killed in a single scene just to pad the kill count. As horror film, this movie failed to add any stakes or tension. The director leaned more into the gore which can be unsettling to look at but never made me feel uneasy. There was no build up to any of the kills, these classic horror elements made the movie seem extremely bland. Overall, I think this film is a marvel from a technical perspective based on its low budget, but when judging it from a film perspective it left me bored and waiting for the credits.
**Score:** _33%_
**Verdict:** _Bad_

Terrifier is a gory movie with a sadistic killer clown that revels in mutilating his victims in creative ways and willing to use any kind of improvised weapon as well as one not often seen in slasher movies. The movie makes effective use of practical effects and the gory murders are graphic enough to make you know this movie means business. David Howard Thornton stars as Art the Clown and his portrayal is devilishly effective as a villain who is mute and must use facial gestures to express himself in his ghoulish clown makeup. The story is the usual cat and mouse variety but this film is more about watching Art capture, torture and mutilate his victims. Terrifier is an effective and bloody slasher film that follows the usual formula of 1980's horror films and has crowned Art the Clown as one of the new faces of horror.

**The French version of the famous fairy-tale.**
I should have seen this before the latest Disney version of the tale. It came a couple of years ago, with a wonderful cast and visuals. French cinema is not a great vfx powerhouse. Unlike most of the famous Hollywood mythical and fairy tales originated from Europe, it's rare to see them converted to films in the similar fashion in its homeland. One of the reasons was the international market, to earn back everything they have spent for it, and more. When such projects do happen, sometimes the filmmakers tie up with Hollywood co-production to secure returns. Even if you take this film's worldwide box office, nothing overwhelming. But the challenge they had taken was truly appreciable.
That's not it, this is the most redesigned versions of them all I've seen so far. Because I haven't seen any other than Disney's, excluding the modern timeline adaptation like 'Beastly', 'I' et cetera. Yeah, even the Disney's live-action retained original from their animated version, but visually extraordinary. And in here, the story was same, thought told in a different way. The graphics too were very nice, I did not expect that. Despite it is being a fantasy and a children's tale, the contents were more serious. That reveals they were very keen to bring the adults to the screens than the kids. Yet nothing too seriously targeted the grownups like 'Tale of Tales'.
Everyone knows the basic storyline of this tale. A recently lost their fortune, a family of six siblings with their father relocates to a small farmhouse. No one other than the youngest daughter, Belle, was happy to be in such nature surrounded place. But one day when her father got into a big trouble, she takes his position and becomes a prisoner in an abandoned castle. Since then she begins to learn about the mystery man of the castle, particularly his past, reason to be ended like that. And following, a twist in the narration leading to the finale, everyone's fate will be revealed.
> ❝Remember... A life for a rose.❞
The film was two hours long and well filled with the scenes in it all over. It doesn't feel like we're watching a fantasy film. The colours, costumes, medieval story, misty mountain, all is the major reminder that you are watching a fairy-tale. Though you won't get anything magical from the story right away. Not until the third act. As for the story, from such vastly known tale, you can't expect any major surprise. As I said, some minor changes can be witnessed throughout. But such kind of scale the flick has in all the department, that too coming from Europe makes it a very special.
Definitely no to comparison with the Disney's. Both of them were fine products on their own way. But people would compare and pick one when they are based on the same source. That can't be stopped. Disney had created their own brand, aiming for kids. You can find the people who liked both the live-actions. I never knew the original tale, I mean from the original source/text. Those who are familiar with are saying, this is most closest one. But something I did not understand was the Beast was cute furry Beast, just like Disney's. I anticipated something tough physique, hard character, I mean Beast as a real Beastly.
Excluding that slight displeasure, I have had no other complaints with the film. I enjoyed it, yet there's another thing which is actually a question rather than a disagreement. The actors did their parts, though I felt the Beast character should have been played by a younger one. Vincent Cassel is a brilliant French actor and he did his best for it. Lea Seydoux as Beauty surely an excellent pick. The direction was good. Cautiously spent for everything in the film. So they have got a fine final product. Most of the people going for it, only keeping in mind Disney. You won't get that Disney's singing, dancing, overall appeal. One must clear off his mind from any great ideas and then only give it a try. Remember, it is not a very good film, but simply a good film.
_7/10_

It seems as if big screen dueling cinematic fairy tales are the trend within the last few years at the box office. Back in 2012 movie audiences were bombarded by the _Snow White_ avalanche when filmmaker Rupert Sanders’s _Snow White and the Huntsman_ had the share the releasing spotlight with director Tarsem Singh’s _Mirror Mirror_ (although Singh’s whimsical narrative had the head start in hitting the movie theaters first by a mere two months). Now in skipping ahead four years later we seem to have a repeat performance with another classic tale involving youthful fairy tale femininity as the focus shifts to the “Beauty” from Jeanne-Marie Laprince’s **Beauty and the Beast** (or for the French-speaking movie-goers “Le Belle et Le Bete”). In 2016, co-writer/director Christophe Gans’s (“Brotherhood of the Wolf”, “Silent Hill”) **Beauty and the Beast** makes its lavish entrance into the movie mindset of viewers waiting to see what amounts to be another stagy screen adaptation of Laprince’s vintage and unconventional fairy tale romancer. Bill Condon’s musical film version of **Beauty and the Beast** will makes its entry a few months later in March 2017.
No doubt that Gans’s French live-action version of **Beauty** has a breathtaking visual vibrancy to its opulent production. Plus, it certainly does not hurt the polished product when the film features a couple of France’s big-time smooth cinema stars in leads Vincent Cassel and Lea Seydoux. In any event, **Le Belle et La Bete/Beauty and the Beast** was originally produced in 2014 so now it is making the rounds to the U.S. shores and elsewhere. As imaginative and sleek that Gans’s colorful showcase is in its elegant presentation the film fails to offer anything dramatically darker or delirious that dares to separate any distinction from past interpretations of this famously familiar story for the ages.
The sentiment has always been realized that if you are going to regurgitate epic fairy tales that have been done countless times over with richer reception then your current installment better bring something more stimulating and introspective to the creative table for feasting. For the longest time Disney, in particular, had the notable monopoly on the animated musical _Beauty and the Beast_ from the early nineties. Also, Jean Cocteau’s nostalgically hypnotic 1946 fantasy offering still manages to resonate as well. Somehow Gans’s elaborate and eye-popping take on the photogenic cutie and the misunderstood creature does not quite translate or connect beyond its obvious sumptuousness. **Beauty and the Beast**, at least in modern-day and future outings, should strive to the accountability of being more than a serviceable non-traditional love story saddled in sparkling trivialities.
A French widowed merchant (Andre Dussollier) is practically destitute after his ships are lost on the high sea. So the bankrupt family man of six children packs up and moves to a quaint countryside home to try and reclaim his chaotic life. His absent ships are not the only thing that is considered lost as his brood of problematic offspring are a handful. However, the one bright spot out of the unruly bunch is youngest daughter Belle (Sedoux, “Blue is the Warmest Color”). Whereas Belle’s dissatisfied siblings are not thrilled with the relocation and overall less-than-stellar circumstances she in fact is taking a positive approach to the land and her father’s unsettling situation at hand.
Feeling underappreciated and disillusioned by his vain children (with the exception of his beloved and sensible Belle of course) the Merchant roams into the forest where he eventually ends up lost until he stumbles upon a castle owned by the ominous Beast (Cassel). The Merchant decides to take a gorgeous red rose from the property as a kind gesture to give to his only grateful child Belle. However, the Merchant absconding with the red rose did not quite sit right with the retaliatory Beast. This treasured red rose is the symbolic reminder of the Beast’s cherished late wife. As a result the Merchant must pay the ultimate price in the eyes of the demanding Beast by holding him for rightful compensation. Specifically, the Merchant must be in life-long servitude to the fearsome Beast as selected punishment. Should the Merchant not comply with his indefinite servant role then the Beast promises to eradicate his entire family. Yikes!
Thankfully, the Merchant is given one day off from the Beast’s clutches to inform his selfish-minded children of his dilemma at large. When the Merchant says his last goodbyes to his family a concerned Belle gets word of her father’s inescapable fate. Feeling guilty and somewhat responsible as the recipient of the so-called forbidden red rose Belle rushes over to the castle and offers herself as a suitable replacement for her father’s harsh sentence as the Beast’s human piece of property. Fortunately, the Beast accepts the swap as Belle is allowed to assume her father’s servicing duties. Thus, Belle benefits from the Beast greatly as he occasionally spoils her with pretty outfits and lets her enjoy the castle’s majestic surroundings–a far cry from where she hails from domestically. The stipulation is that Belle must have a mandatory dinner with the Beast each and every evening. Otherwise, the co-existence between the duo is solid and non-confrontational.
Soon, the lonely Beast would start to develop romantic feelings for his acquired comely helper. At first Belle is repulsed by the fact that her hideous-looking overseer would dare to suggest that his heart yearns for her especially when this seemingly corrosive creature had her father (and currently now her) in a reluctant arrangement to serve his anti-social, personalized needs. Belle eventually realizes that the Beast is rather intriguing to her and not as sinister as she first imagined. Their bond tightens as the days go by and Belle cannot help but dream about how the Beast came to be from ages ago. Surely he must have been captivating in his regal heyday and stylized existence despite whatever heavy-handed pathos that had destroyed this once passionate soul. Clearly, the Beast is in search of true love and companionship so the golden question remains: can Belle be the beauty that finally eases his inner pain and comes to the rescue of his empty heart?
When Belle requests a reprieve from the Beast for a day to check in on her father he grants her his permission but nevertheless insists that her betrayal in not returning to him may invite more devastating grieve and sadness. Surely Belle does not want the Beast to be overcome with wrought based on her potential deception. It does not get any easier when Belle learns of her riff raffish older brother and his crew that are planning on raiding the castle and killing the Beast in the process of stealing all his wealthy possessions. Naturally, Belle’s love and attraction for the Beast is set in stone as she cringes at the potential harm her misguided family has on the mind to lift his riches and end his life. Will Belle’s deep-seeded affections for the Beast be enough to prevent her wayward clan from harming a hair on her beleaguered suitor’s hunted head?
Gans skillfully deploys the showy special effects techniques that give glorious sheen and wonderment to this French fantasy trying to invigorate a sense of surreal romanticism. Indeed, **Beauty and the Beast** boasts a robust landscape riddled with its telling brand of atmospheric charm and escapist curiosity. Besides, a French-made re-imagining of this glossy folktale should scream volumes of a dream-like aura that paints an alluring picture. Although Gans strikes a boisterous balance in conveying his exposition with the gumption of a rousing spectacle worthy of its welcomed glitter **Beauty** still feels rather distant and incomplete without adequately generating any substantive chemistry between its lovelorn leads.
Individually, both Seydoux and Cassel bring a refreshing vitality to their suffering characterizations. Cassel’s Beast is effective as the languishing, wounded wonder imprisoned by his past emotional demons while Seydoux’s Beauty/Belle demonstrates a feisty heroine not afraid to embrace the loveliness of her persona. But Gans fails to provide any consistent rapport between Seydoux and Cassel collectively as they share awkward dinners and matter-of-fact conversations that do not seem to register with much gusto. Seydoux’s Belle aimlessly parades around in designer dresses as Cassel’s beastly kidnapper methodically pines for his curvaceous captive. In fact, Cassel’s Beast has more romantic reverence in flashbacks towards his departed wife than he does in contemporary times with his desired Belle. When the third act involves Belle’s villainous brother and the plot to ruin the Beast’s livelihood the film turns into a recycled revenge period piece that places more emphasis on the Beast’s periled predicament than the intended juicy love story between a mismatched pair of lovers building a tenet of belonging.
Gans (and co-writer Sandra Vo-Anh) deliver a _Beauty_ of a package that befittingly wallows in the shadows of previous_ Beast_ editions. This fairy tale falls short of its entertaining goal despite its pleasing, tangy wrapping.
**Beauty and the Beast (La Belle et La Bete)** 2016
Shout! Factory Films
1 hr. 48 mins
Starring: Vincent Cassel, Lea Seydoux, Andre Dussollier, Eduardo Noriega, Audrey Lamy, Myriam Charleins, Nicolas Gob, Jonathan Demurger, Yvonne Catterfeld, Louka Meliava, Sara Giraudeau
Directed and Co-Written by: Christophe Gans
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: Fantasy and Romance/Sci-Fi/Mystery and Suspense
Critic’s Rating: ** stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) **Frank Ochieng** (2016)

'Wall Street' makes for an interesting watch, anything to do with the titular financial market is total gobbledygook to me but even I was fairly hooked throughout. The performances of Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen are top notch, so no surprise it turns out to be very good.
I would say that the pacing is not the best, it probably overstays its welcome a bit, though to be honest that's the only thing I have to list under negatives and it's not even a big one. The relatively more energetic ending does do a fair bit to quell any serious run time issues.

If there were ever to be a film to demonstrate to youngsters the toxic effects of greed on someone then you'd struggle to find a more apt one than this. Made at the height of the stock market boom, it tells the tale of the naive but ambitious "Bud Fox" (Charlie Sheen) who devises a get-rich-quick scheme that attracts the attention of his super-venal boss "Gekko" (a superb Michael Douglas) who treats scruples like something unpleasant he had just trodden on. What now ensues is a break-neck course in how avarice; manipulation; a certain degree of luck and loads of sheer brass neck take him from being a bit of an home boy, to living in a fancy loft apartment, bathing in champagne and alienating both his erstwhile colleagues and his working class father "Carl" (Martin Sheen). It is only when a scheme that involves that latter man's airline employer is front and centre on planet "Gekko" that the young man starts to realise what's happening and with the help of Briton "Sir Larry Wildman" (a rather too plausible Terence Stamp) changes course a little. It has a very effective supporting cast; the writing and direction from Oliver Stone is quickly paced and well focussed and the story itself shows the rat race in as true a cinematic rendition as I have ever seen. Sure, the shoulder pads and costumes have dated since 1987, but the principles of a dog-eat-dog world are just as worthy of exposure now as they were then.

Wow! You can't escape the fact that this movie pushes the limits of disturbing art! Many will call it sick. I suspect the point of this film is more about the depravity and dehumanization of fascism, political corruption, totalitarianism, and morality. I have not read the Marquis de Sade's work on which this film was based.
**It isn't possible to "un-see" a film, so be prepared if you choose the experience.** It was described to me as "horror" before I watched it, and I'm not sure it truly captures the film's genre. I can't think of a film genre that adequately describes it.
I will probably never watch it again or forget the images it seared on my brain. But I was challenged to think about various political and societal themes that are still very relevant today.

Well you have to hand it to Pier Paolo Pasolini - he had one hell of an imagination. Here he devises a story of a group of nine young men and women who are apprehended by four powerful Fascist officials and held captive for use in some of the most degrading and painful games of sex, humiliation and abuse. I was warned not to eat chocolate before I saw this, and towards the end of this bizarre depiction of cruelty, depravity and exploitation it became quite clear why - and I'd reiterate that here. There is something profoundly desperate about the film. It has nothing even vaguely redeeming about it. Is it allegorical? Perhaps Pasolini is swiping at what he perceived to be the beginning of the disposable culture? Perhaps the illustration of mankind at it's more obscene offers us his perspective on just what humanity had become by the mid 1970s? In any case, this is frankly rather a disgusting film to watch and though I did feel the ending had a great deal of suitable retribution to it, I still struggled to quite get my head around this epitome of man's inhumanity to their own kind. I doubt I shall ever watch it again, but it packed out the cinema in which I watched it and there was plenty of provocative conversation in the bar about it afterwards...