**Considered by many to be the first and greatest film of Audrey Hepburn's career.**
What is special about this film? Really, little. The story is very simple: it is the almost adolescent escape of a young princess who, tired of the responsibilities and visibility inherent in a crown, decides to distract herself and live her youth for a few hours. The problem is that she ends up, inadvertently, at the home of an American news journalist in charge of interviewing her, and who wants to take advantage of the situation. Of course, anyone hoping for an interesting dalliance between the princess and the commoner will be rewarded, to some extent. Predictable? Cliché? Of course, but it was with illusions like these that cinema fed the magic of the monarchical universe, somewhat to its own advantage.
If the story told is not particularly brilliant and stands out for its simplicity and a range of obvious choices and solutions, what are we left with? Scenarios? Costumes? Effects? Sound? Cinematography? In part, yes. The sets are very well done, and the film, which is actually filmed in Rome, is one of the first and best cinema postcards of this city. I still know people who have been to Rome, and been where the characters in the film have been too, such as the Trevi Fountain or the Mouth of the Truth, tourist landmarks that this film helped to popularize. Without major effects, it has a nice and atmospheric sound and soundtrack, and the cinematography, in black and white, is very good. The scenes of the two main characters riding a Vespa through the streets of the city center are particularly anthological. We can also say that the film was wonderfully edited, and the story moves at an elegant and pleasant pace.
But what would this movie be without Audrey Hepburn? I don't think it's possible to imagine the character in the skin of another actress. She had the nobility and dignified serenity required of royalty, and imbued the character with authenticity, credibility, and friendliness. It's impossible to watch the film and not feel a certain sympathetic affection for her character, who simply wants a few hours to distract herself from the institutional routines and duties for which she was educated. Gregory Peck was a clear choice to be the journalist who helps her and creates a certain romantic affection for her.

Audrey Hepburn is the visiting princess "Ann" whose whistle-stop tour of Europe reaches Rome. Put to bed, as usual, she decides to don some ordinary clothes and venture out for a bit of exploring. Now, initially I thought she was going to hook up with some swarthy, tousled, Lothario but nope - she meets American journalist Gregory Peck - quite the epitome of the ordinary "Joe"! Full of the sedatives that her people gave her before she snuck out, she ends up crashing at his apartment and next morning he realises whom she is, and that his boss wants an exclusive! Just about penniless, she leaves and tries to make her way home - but again "accidentally" bumps into "Joe" and together with his photographer pal "Irving" (Eddie Albert), the three embark on some fun and engaging escapades in the Eternal City where this young woman finally manages to escape her cosseted life - she even gets an haircut - before reality gradually starts to reimpose itself on them all. There is a smashing chemistry between Hepburn and Peck; the script and the scenarios allow to us to follow as they gradually fall in love. There is an engaging innocence about Hepburn's performance; she manages to convey a great sense of a woman who is finally free - but knows it can only be temporary, and the scenes with Peck and Albert are entertaining as their cunning plans are continually being altered. Georges Auric's score is classy and mischievous, and the whole stylish look of the film makes it quite delightful to watch. A classic class of less is more!

Lighthearted and enjoyable comedy featuring two wonderful and charismatic performances by Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn in her first major role. Last saw this 12 years ago and still fun to this day. **4.5/5**

Enjoyable.
I had never heard of 'Home on the Range' until recently, given I felt consistently entertained by it I'm surprised it hadn't reached my horizons before. It's nothing deep or massively meaningful, but it's good family fun that the younger audiences will probably largely like. It doesn't feel Disney-esque, I will say that.
There are a number of instantly noticeable voices in the cast. Steve Buscemi, Cuba Gooding Jr., Jennifer Tilly and Judi Dench all appear as Wesley, Buck, Grace and Mrs. Caloway respectively. Away from them, Randy Quaid does well as Alameda Slim, while Sam Levine is mildly amusing as the Willie Brothers.
Premise-wise it's nothing standout or entirely memorable, but I had a nice enough time watching it unfold and that's all you really ask for. Solid film.

Except, it isn't really much about the "other" Boleyn girl at all, is it? Eric Bana never could hold a film together, and his effort as the amorous but volatile King Henry VIII proves he can't here either. Scarlett Johansson (Anne) and Natalie Portman (Mary) play the Boleyn girls well enough with decent, if brief, contributions from Kristin Scott-Thomas and Mark Rylance as their parents and from Jim Sturgess as their sexually ambiguous brother George. It looks sumptuous enough with plenty of attention to detail both indoors and out, but is over-written and it has all the sexual chemistry of a children's tea party. Sadly, it's a disappointingly weak adaptation of an intriguing story of betrayal, treachery and lust that really deserves better. Perhaps a film mainly for fans of a good costume drama that's big on costumes but less so on drama...

**An unusual team of two to fight the evil spirits!**
This was based on the real account. A cop from the New York who witnessed those unexplained events are what this film depicted for us. I think it is slightly an underrated film. Not because of true story, but from the entertainment perspective. From the beginning till the end, I enjoyed watching it. Horror means there's no big scary stuff in it, still being true to the genre, it told a decent story. It was well written and directed, a film that I almost missed, but now I can gladly suggest it to the others. But it is just an above average, yet worth a watch.
The story follows a cop who witnesses a series of strange events, which also influence his past. In the most of the case, he's trying to find one particular person, a painter seen in and around the city. So he and his partner finally find that strange man and when they do, it is already too late. One of them gets injured and the other one tries his best teaming up with a priest to fight the demon that terrorising the city. The film ends with an interesting event. Looks a sequel won't be a bad idea, since the duo is still fighting the devils as what the end statement reveals.
There's a recent television series I'm watching called 'Outcast' and this film is kind of resembles that. Anyway, this one came first, but what makes they both be alike is the unusual team up between two different field people. The series is like a follow-up of this film, or maybe inspired by this original story. Eric Bana is not everybody's favourite, but his films are quite enjoyable and for this, he had given his best. Co-stars are not bad either; particularly Edgar Ramirez was awesome as a priest. I hope you would find it interesting as I did. It would be beyond that for some, so all I say is watch it with a low expectations.
_6.5/10_

A satisfactory Christmas film.
'The Santa Clause' starts off pretty strongly, with Tim Allen (Scott) showing off some quick and amusing wit. The early moments are actually the best parts in my opinion, the rest of the 97 minutes are enjoyable enough though.
Allen is easily the most standout part of the film, none of the other cast members really come close at all. Eric Lloyd does an alright job as Scott's son, Charlie. The festive music is pleasant, while the sets etc. look decent - the special effects aren't incredible, but are certainly serviceable.
Many better Xmas productions out there, but there's enough here to feel entertained by.

This one is my favorite one out of the presents series. A lot of nudity for the pervs. That includes you too woman lol. Also lots of drinking and drugs. I wish all college party's were this fun when I use to party.

> The youthfulness ever presence, despite the living matter nears to cease.
Half a year ago the first look poster of this movie's stirred everyone including myself. Not seen such kind of posters for even movies like 'Blue is the Warmest colour' and 'Nymphomaniac I & II'. It is obvious the director of the Oscar, Golden Globe and BAFTA winner for the movie 'The Great Beauty' delivered another similar ordinary concept about extraordinary fictional personalities. And the way of their life, especially when they meet the difficulties at some point of their lives.
From all, the casting of Michael Caine caught my interest on this. This is another wonderful movie with the hard work of the fine cast and the crew. There is a good chance for the movie in the upcoming Oscar and other prestigious awards node in a couple of categories, including for the Caine's performance. Because it looks like made for awards, rather breaking records at the box office.
Whatever the topic of the movie is, 'love' stands at the centre of the web. Human affections for each others, losing someone you love and at a same time falling for another. All about passing through 'love' in the life and in which, how strong is our grip on it to carry along with us to the end of the life was illustrated pretty compelling way.
The theme was bold, and everything shown was realistic. But it also makes some illusions to brief the other side of reality. For instance, a Buddhist monk who demonstrates his peaceful achievement, a fat man kicking a tennis ball high in the air et cetera, all these are the youthfulness of who are no more youths, citing as a desire for beyond their limits which is obviously what the title implies.
I won't expect everyone like the movie as I did, because it is not made for everyone. But you could try it and then decide your thought on this film. That is one of the way the movies like this can work for the people who are choosy sometimes.
8/10

"Ren" (Kevin Bacon) moves from the big city to a small town run by the rather puritanical preacher "Moore" (John Lithgow) only to find that dancing, singing - indeed just about every form of entertainment has been banished. He claims that is to protect them and their children from ungodly corrupting influences. The new boy is treated with enough circumspection before "Ariel" (Lori Singer) takes a shine to him, but once it's known that the daughter of the town bible-basher is having a romance with the disruptive influence, then battle lines are drawn. It's fair too say that "Ren" hasn't his problems to seek finding and keeping work and with the local lads who resent his cool, James Dean, style attitude. Things come to an head when he proposes at a town council meeting that the ban be lifted so that they can get a bit "Footloose". The drama here is as good as it's contemporaries like "Flashdance" (1983) and enjoyably builds on the craze that was probably started with and perpetuated by "Fame" (and it's "Kids") but the acting is all pretty mediocre, as the dialogue. It's essentially a film about a soundtrack - and there are plenty of songs here beginning with the title song then "Let's Hear it for the Boy" and Bonnie Tyler's "Holding Out for a Hero" amongst those complementing an underscore of AOR and some energetic dance moves from both Bacon and Singer. It was an huge film at the time and made many a reputation, but time has rather neutered that novelty and now it's a film I'd rather listen to than watch.

It's still one of my favorites and I could hardly walk when it first came out.
And now it's legend, so writing a real review is almost needless. Just about everyone has seen it. It's still regarded as a classic.
So I suppose the best thing to say is that it's like the Karate Kid...only with dancing rather than martial arts.
Single mother and son move into a new town. Son is an outsider that gets in trouble with the local bully. Son starts dating the local bully's girlfriend. Son and bully fight and...resolution.
However, it goes a bit deeper in that it references several cases of high school kids actually taking on town ordinances against dancing.
And Kevin Bacon is the new kid in town, so he's like the Karate Kid, but he also serves in the Pat Morita role as instructor.
And the evil dojo is actually a church and the bad guy is actually a preacher and not a Karate trainer and has a very kind heart and cares a lot for his community. So the main villain isn't really evil he just has a different point of view, and unlike movies today, he is allowed to have a different point of view, to really be wrong in his beliefs, and still be portrayed as a kind and caring person.
So, it's like the Karate Kid only with actual depth and much better soundtrack.

"A time to mourn and a time to dance" - Ecclesiastes 3:4
RELEASED IN 1984 and directed by Herbert Ross, “Footloose” chronicles events in the small Western town of Bomont where dancing and loud music have been outlawed because of an accident that killed some kids years earlier. Preacher’s daughter Ariel (Lori Singer) rebels against the legalistic measures while taking liking to a new student from Chicago, Ren (Kevin Bacon), whom her father (John Lithgow) disapproves of because he perceives Ren as a “troublemaker” who wants to change the town laws against dancing.
Also on hand are Chris Penn as Ren's “country boy” pal, Willard, and Sarah Jessica Parker as Ariel's friend, Rusty. Penn's character is real fun and Sarah was a real cutie back in '84.
I stayed away from this film because of Roger Ebert's scathing review and the fact that I thought the story was about some big city fop moving to a small town and dancing on the tables of the local high school, etc. I was wrong (and so was Ebert). The protagonist, Ren, is no dandy; in fact, he can kick some arse if necessary. And you never see him dancing through the halls of the high school or whatever. He’s a professional-class gymnast and his dynamic solo work-out at the factory is simply a matter of blowing off steam, which is a form of healthy venting.
Although I stayed away from "Footloose,” the film acquired a respectable following and this inspired me to finally view it. I now understand why it's so popular. "Footloose" has that cinematic magic that pulls you in and gives you a good time. This is just a really entertaining movie with an exceptional soundtrack of songs made for the move with no less than six top 40 hits, like the title track by Kenny Loggins and “Holding Out for a Hero” performed by Bonnie Tyler, plus a couple of other significant ditties, e.g. “Bang Your Head” by Quiet Riot.
Surprisingly, “Footloose” also has depth and is actually moving. We understand Rev. Shaw Moore's grief, but his rigid law-ism isn't doing his people or town any good. I like how Shaw isn't made out to be the clichéd villain. This is a good man thinking he's doing the right thing for his town, and in many ways he is, but the legalistic spirit he cops is sapping the life out of him, his family, his congregants and his town. Does he have the wisdom to see his error and re-route?
BOTTOM LINE: Footloose is easily the best of the Big Three 80's dance movies and actually made significantly more at the domestic box office than “Dirty Dancing” ($80 million compared to $65 million). It has heart, a great cast, a superb soundtrack, all-around entertainment and real-life mindfood. It's also based on a true story that occurred in Elmore City, Oklahoma. Actually, there were similar towns with the same laws throughout America (and maybe still are).
THE FILM RUNS 1 hour, 47 minutes and was shot in areas 30 minutes south of Salt Lake City, on the eastern side of Utah Lake. WRITER: Dean Pitchford.
GRADE: A

Mel Gibson ("Col. Moore") takes charge of training for, and then execution of, a perilous operation in the Vietnamese highlands in 1965. We know from the start of the film how difficult that task is going to be - the previous French troops met with ruthless treatment at the hands of the N.V.A. and so "Moore" and his motivational deputy "Crandall" (Greg Kinnear) know that they are going to have their work cut out for them. Their mission is to combat an enemy with overwhelming superiority of numbers and try to capture and hold a mountain. Needless to say, their hosts are none too keen on that a plan and what ensues is a brutally depicted, bloody and gory, series of well photographed combat scenes that test the mettle of both sides as the body count mounts. There is a poignant angle added too, as back home we see the colonel's wife "Julie" (Madeleine Stowe) take responsibility for delivery of the letters that are sent to the families on the base intimating bad - even tragic - news to those left behind. Sam Elliott adds well some stoic discipline as "Sgt. Maj. Plumley" and Chris Klein's portrayal of the recent father "Lt. Geoghegan" also contributes a strong human angle to this story. Sadly, though, this is all way too long and though certainly potent at the start, that is washed away in a sea of repetition. What makes us sit up and take notice at the start becomes much less effective; the pyrotechnics lose their impressiveness a bit and to be honest, Gibson just hasn't the on-screen presence to carry this for 2¼ hours. It does emphasise just how modern - airborne, usually - warfare can provide smaller groups with greater superiority and as an example of the ghastliness and futility of war it is a worth watching.

When a yeti manages to escape from a compound he is terrified and hides out on the roof of a city building where he encounters a young girl. She likes to leave her apartment below and come up to escape, plan her trek to China and to play her violin. "Yi" spots the big furry white hand and soon both are as afraid as the other. That quickly passes and soon the two, and her neighbours "Peng" and "Jin" and embarked on a boat and primed for some adventures trying to get their new pal back to Mount Everest. Meantime, of course, the people it escaped from are bent on recapture and using state-of-the-art technology are soon on their trail. This is one of those gently evolving stories of friendship and inter-reliance peppered with some lovely scenery and just a hint of menace from the pursing "Dr. Zara". The yeti performs some feats of chilly blue magic and proves that he's not a beastie to cross as their journey takes a circuitous route back to colder climes. The animation style is simple with loads of emphasis on the faces and there's a bit of humour now and again to help sustain it. There's little new here, though - it's all just a bit on the predictable side, but I rather liked our furry white friend and as movies about bonding go - this isn't at all bad.

Not quite sure on the rules of the world here in _Abominable_, but this was so fuckin' cute. There's a lot of silly sort of conveniences that did bother me some, but it also made me feel something, which I don't often get out of modern-day kids' movies.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

There was a few thing in _Peppermint_ that maybe isn't my favoured way of doing this sort of thing, chiefly the format for the timeline. Some of these issues slowly faded over the course of _Peppermint's_ run-time, though they did still stick in my mind. But the most important thing you ask for from a Revenge-flick like this is some satisfying splatter from cathartic headshots, and _Peppermint_ does deliver on that front. _Peppermint_ is not a big win in my eyes (which is a shame 'cause I was very engaged based on the trailer) but I am glad that it made some money, 'cause if we can get a _Death Wish_ remake, hopefully we can get some more _Death Wish_ clones like this too.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

This is a movie I can't help but really despise. Especially egregious is the pretentious way in which the filmmaker takes a position of haughty moral indignation and attempts to guilt-trip his own audience for wanting to watch a horror film in the first place. We know what he wanted to achieve with this movie, because he has told us explicitly; and he thought so highly of his achievement that he decided to make the film twice, shot-for-shot. Every scene is deliberately calculated to be as awkward to watch and as boring as possible, since anti-suspense is part of the "point". It is essentially the writer/director giving a middle finger to anyone willing to sit through this finger-wagging tripe.

Balto is an a underrated treasure with memorable characters, endearing moments, howling humor, and canine villainy/heroism that rivals movies from Disney's golden-age. You'll be rooting for the literal underdog throughout while all of the supporting characters add to the charm. It's a top-tier family movie that has zero foul language and zero religious slurs, with the only near-miss being when one character says "Son of a...", leaving the phrase unfinished. If you like a good sled-dog movie, this is one of the best!

I was hoping it would entertain me as much as 'Flags of Our Fathers' had - and I'm pleased to say it did!
I'd say that aforementioned release pips this companion piece, but the difference in quality is virtually indistinguishable - both are very good films. Ken Watanabe, Kazunari Ninomiya and Ryo Kase all give excellent performances, I enjoyed that trio throughout 'Letters from Iwo Jima'.
It's really cool to see the Japanese point of view of the Battle of Iwo Jima, having previously seen the American view last time out. It's also pleasing that the film portrays this side of the story correctly and tells the tale in Japanese, despite being an all-American production. The film reportedly did well in Japan, which I guess confirms that it did a respectable job.

These days one can find busy singer/dancer/actress Jennifer Lopez performing her judging duties on the small screen with the longtime singing competition ‘American Idol’. However, the still radiant and curvaceous ‘JLo’ found some time to gravitate back to the big screen and revisit the overplayed ‘woman in peril’ genre with her latest generic psychological thriller in director Rob Cohen’s (‘The Fast And The Furious’) ‘The Boy Next Door’. Needlessly rehashed, rudimentary and titillating in tepidness, ‘The Boy Next Door’ is nothing more than a thin serving of the arbitrary ‘damsel-in-distress’ chick flicks that pop up and serve as throwaway conveyor belt melodramas. ‘The Boy Next Door’ will inevitably beg for obvious comparisons to ready-made Lifetime cable movies. Well, there are a decent amount of Lifetime movies that can actually give the limping ‘The Boy Next Door’ a run for its creative money.
In essence, Lopez is no stranger to these types of ‘harried heroines’ on the defense so she is quite comfortable in rollicking in the paper-thin premise of ‘The Boy Next Door’. In forgettable 2001’s ‘Angel Eyes’ and 2002’s ‘Enough’ we witness Lopez’s on-screen dilemma as the creepy men in her life are ominously drawn to her aura causing the heightened jeopardy at large. The case in ‘Boy’ is similar except that the delusional young man in question is as dreamy as he is deranged for the endangered cougar. Hey, he may be crazed but he is still cute, right ladies?
The reality is that we have seen this formula countless times before as ‘The Boy Next Door’ offers nothing fresh or feisty to the table. The teaspoon-sized tension is laughable. The run-of-the-mill steamy scenes are not even trashy enough to digest with notable suspense. Undoubtedly, ‘The Boy Next Door’ recklessly borrows from every psycho-thriller imaginable and still ends up looking bland and boorish. With all the loving-to-stalking fare out there past and present (ie ‘Fatal Attraction’, ‘The Crush’, ‘Fear’, ‘Swimfan’, ‘Disclosure’, ‘Obsessed’, etc.) the inclusion of ‘The Boy Next Door’ only clogs up the cinematic pipe in reference to this overdone genre.
Under Cohen’s pedestrian direction and screenwriter Barbara Curry’s spotty script ‘Boy’ tells the tale of an attractive middle-aged high school teacher named Claire Peterson (Lopez) whose bout with disillusionment will result in her tawdry affair with a neighboring handsome younger man in 19 year-old Noah Sandborn (Ryan Guzman from the ‘Step It Up’ movies). Before Claire falls into the arms of her youthful studmuffin she is riddled with conflict. For starters, her unfaithful husband Garrett (John Corbett, ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding’) was banished from the house for his constant infidelities. Also, Claire’s sickly teen son Kevin (Ian Nelson) is experiencing growing pains. At this point, Claire needs a positive boost in her existence as she trudges along both in the classroom and at home, where her personal life seems to be in utter shambles.
When the hunkish Noah arrives on the scene to assist his ailing uncle across the street from the Petersons, he makes a lasting impression on the older Claire. Noah is helpful to Claire and becomes sort of the manly mentor that her son Kevin needs to capture his adolescent confidence. Of course, Noah’s backstory is quite suspicious (such as his parents’ so-called mysterious death) but the oozing charm and good company that the older teen offers the stressed Claire is too convenient to pass up. Noah is just too good to be true and Claire has found a young man worthy of entertaining both her and Kevin.
The yummy Guzman certainly is the teacher's preferred pet to Lopez's lonely educator in the generic psycho-stalker thriller THE BOY NEXT DOOR
The yummy Guzman certainly is the teacher’s preferred pet to Lopez’s lonely educator in the generic psycho-stalker thriller THE BOY NEXT DOOR
In the aftermath of a horrible date arranged by her close friend and school vice principal Vicky Lansing (Kristin Chenoweth), Claire lets down her guard and succumbs to her sexual urge for Noah in a hasty moment of passion. Realizing that perhaps her bedtime dalliance with Noah was a mistaken indiscretion Claire informs Noah that they can no longer go on and act upon their carnal connection. This does not sit well with Noah at all. Soon, Claire will experience the psychotic wrath of her scorned young admirer whose smothering need to be with her becomes hauntingly overwhelming. The stakes are dangerously higher when the forgiven Garrett re-enters the picture in an effort to win back Claire’s broken heart.
Overall, the low-budgeted ‘The Boy Next Door’ simply fills in the cheesy blanks with its amateurish jitters. Lopez’s angst-ridden Claire has all the frightened chops of a ransom hayride during a busy livestock convention. The lackluster acting by leads Lopez and Guzman are not impish or impulsive enough to care one way or the other. Corbett’s cheating hubby Garrett feels like a mere footnote in the flaccid proceedings. Chenoweth’s Vicky is offered as a minor sidekick to Lopez’s Claire and annoyingly buzzes around just to bridge the planted thrills.
With the baseless ‘Boy’ added to her film credits it appears that Jenny was never on the block.
The Boy Next Door (2015)
Universal Pictures
1 hr. 31 mins.
Starring: Jennifer Lopez, Ryan Guzman, Ian Nelson, John Corbett, Kristin Chenoweth, Lexi Atkins and Hill Harper
Directed by: Rob Cohen
Rated: R
Genre: Psychological thriller/Romance and Suspense
Critic’s rating: * ½ stars (out of four stars)

'Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult' is the weakest of the trilogy, though fair amusement is still produced.
Leslie Nielsen is so good in the lead role that I don't think it's really possible for these films to drag, at least alongside the decent gags and short run time. Admittedly this third entry does meander a tad, though my interest in events never waned into negative territory. The ending is the strongest part, that facepalm scene (which I knew of before) is gold.
Overall, this is a good franchise. I'm quite looking forward to hopefully checking out Liam Neeson in the 2025 remake, as long as the writing is suitable I think he can absolutely make it work.

**A fitting end to one of the great comedy trilogies of the 90s.**
This is the third and final film in the “Naked Gun” trilogy. Throughout the film, one can smell farewell and conclusion, and it is undeniable that, among them, this is the weakest and least interesting. Even so, the film does what it needs to do to please its audience, who already know perfectly well what they are going to see and have a certain level of expectations. Although his style of humor may displease many people, we cannot deny that the three films were a notable success in the 80s and 90s, and that they had a major impact on Leslie Nielsen's filmography.
In fact, the strength of Nielsen's work and charisma is what makes the film work. Without him, or with another actor, nothing would make sense and the final product would have no value. Even so, we must also highlight the work developed by O. J. Simpson, Priscilla Presley and George Kennedy, actors who put a lot of effort into their respective roles and found, in this film, time and material to match their talent. In fact, compared to its predecessors – and in these cases comparisons are inevitable – I thought this film gave more space to the secondary actors and gained additional quality as a result.
It's not worth talking too much about the technical aspects, as this is a comical film that invests little in them and puts all its chips on humor and the main actor's performance. Even so, we can say that the film manages to maintain the quality that the trilogy has accustomed the public to. The script continues to be a problem, however, and is seen only as a vehicle for successive comic sequences and slapstick humor routines.

Given the huge success of the first two, I suppose the trilogy was bound to happen - but by now the joke and the characterisations had really worn very thin indeed. "Drebin" (Leslie Nielsen) is now happily (?) retired and living with his long-suffering wife "Jane" (Priscilla Presley) when he is sought out by his erstwhile colleagues "Ed" (George Kennedy) and "Nordberg" (OJ Simpson) to help out on their most dangerous case yet. Nope, the Queen is not making another state visit - it's "Rocco" (Fred Ward) and it looks like he wants to save Chris Rock any future embarrassment by blowing up the Oscars ceremony. What now ensues is a by now routine sequence of frying pan to fire scenarios, straight out of a Laurel & Hardy film. Sadly, that humour is all a bit passé now and though an appearance by Anna Nicole Smith must have given every budding actress from Tallahassee to Timbuktu a sense of hope that if she can make it, they can - the rest of it falls pretty flat! It is well enough made, the quips are quickly delivered and some of them still raise the odd smile. In the main, though, it is 80 minutes that almost looks like out-takes from the first two films with a thinly constructed plot by way of a template to hold it all together. It is watchable, but just not a patch on the earlier iterations.

**_An attractive 14 years-old girl knows the power over males she has… and wields it_**
A middle-aged professor of French literature (James Mason) spends the summer in New Hampshire where he becomes infatuated by a 14 years-old girl (Sue Lyon), the daughter of the woman who rents him a room (Shelley Winters). Nothing good will come from this attraction if he cannot keep it in check.
Helmed by Stanley Kubrick based on the book by Vladimir Nabokov, "Lolita" (1962) is a B&W black comedy and psychological drama that was controversial in its day (and still is) so the physical intimacy of the adult-minor relationship is only hinted at. Sue Lyon turned 15 during shooting and is surprisingly a good actress at such a young age. Don’t expect much exploitation of her beauty, though, beyond an early scene of her in a two-piece bathing suit.
The character of Quilty has less of a role in the book and is believable. He’s basically a dark shadow of Humbert, mirroring Humbert's carnal qualities. Unfortunately, Kubrick allowed Peters Sellers to get out-of-control in the part, which spoils it (and the movie). Don’t get me wrong, Peter Sellers has great charisma, even here, but too many of his Quilty scenes are nonsensical or implausible.
The two worst examples are: When he shows up at that hotel and has that eye-rolling (ad-libbed) conversation on the porch while looking in the opposite direction of Humbert. Later he shows up at Humbert’s abode masquerading as a school psychiatrist threatening to have a group of therapists come over to observe Lolita's homelife, unless she can be in his play. Why Sure! It doesn’t help that Humbert curiously goes along with both without question.
While overlong by at least half an hour, the cast is a highlight and the drama is fairly compelling and sometimes amusing despite the quaint datedness of the production and the eye-rolling Quilty scenes.
The film runs 2 hours, 32 minutes, and was shot in both America and England.
GRADE: B-

Decent watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
I'm not a fan of drug humor, "because he's HIGH" isn't a good enough joke to me, but this felt like a spiritual successor to "Dumb and Dumber" (another movie that is funny, but I'm not a huge fan of).
John Cho and Kal Penn work amazingly together, so much so that I'm honestly surprised there isn't a web series of "Harold and Kumar" skits (and if there are, then happy day) trying to wring blood from stone.
The story has a great structure: a clear antagonist, clear love interest, a goal, plenty of adversity, and lots of quality character interaction.
The problem with the content is that it's a series of ever increasing ridiculous events. The continuity suffers a bit, but its done so well that it feels seemless in the moment.
The comedy writing is good enough that it holds up over 16 years, the majority of which is really funny. It's not so funny that this is an amazing movie, but it definitely makes it work a watch.

Usually, if it's got a Treadaway in it, it is going to be fun. This one is. It starts with poor nurse "Sam" (Jodie Whittaker) getting mugged by "Moses" (John Boyega) and his gang on a South London housing estate. It's Guy Fawkes night so with fireworks and racket everywhere, nobody notices her plight. Just as they are about to move on, some debris crashes into a nearby car and "Moses" goes to see what he can find. What he doesn't expect is that something is going to bite him - something he doesn't want to bite back! In a bit of a panic, he promptly kills it and he and his gang return home to see what it is they've got. That was their first mistake for shortly afterwards they are besieged by loads of pantomime gorillas who have seriously overdone it with the Colgate. Now this is where "Brewis" (Luke T) comes up with the theory that "Moses" - or his clothes - have been impregnated with a pheromone by a lady beastie and those chasing are, well, just all a bit horny after a very long space flight. With that eye-watering prospect facing "Moses" he must either get naked or try to find a way to lure the critters to their collective doom. His agent must have had a view on the former solution, so he opts for the latter... This has clearly been done on a bit of a shoestring, but the writing and characterisations are quite entertaining, Whittaker, Boyega and the gobby "Pest" (Alex Esmail) deliver some of the candidly pithy script quite amiably as their ridiculous scenario plays out, perilously, before them. Rarely can a recycling bin have featured quite so importantly in a movie. Treadaway has a daft double act going on with the geeky "Ron" (Nick Frost) and Jumayn Hunter also chips in well as the ostensibly menacing gang leader "Hi-Hatz" who keeps a marijuana plantation growing in a top floor flat that must have had one hell of an electricity bill. A first effort from director Joe Cornish, and it's basic on just about every level but it marries the principles of community spirit and brotherhood with a feature length episode of "Dr. Who" quite enjoyably.

An alien invasion hits the "hood" in London reeking havoc with the local gangs. Excellent performances by all invoived including a breakout role for John Boyega (or Star Wars fame).

It’s raining Gollums!
Attack the Block is written and directed by Joe Cornish. It stars Jodie Whittaker, John Boyega, Alex Esmail, Jumayn Hunter, Luke Treadaway and Nick Frost. Music is by Basement Jaxx and Steven Price and cinematography by Tom Townend.
When a South London tower block comes under attack from aliens, a young gang of lads and the nurse they just mugged have to band together to fight back.
In Britain we was wondering just when Joe Cornish was going to turn his hand to directing a feature film, here for his debut he tackled a sci-fiction action comedy with a wry bit of social commentary thrown in for good measure – it was worth the wait.
With one Edgar Wright hovering about in the producers lounge and Nick Frost on hand as a reassuringly adult comedic presence, it could be argued that Attack the Block has joined the Wright/Pegg production line. Yet when you break it down this does in fact homage a myriad of siege invasion films, but still it becomes very much its own animal.
Cornish dangerously structures his film by introducing us to a young gang of kids who think nothing of mugging a single defenceless woman – with a knife. With the group spouting their turf speak (some none British views may struggle initially with the dialogue), they are not a bunch of youngsters one can easily get on side with. In fact to dislike them in an instant is wholly justifiable and understandable, so much so that once the aliens arrive it’s a human reaction to root for them to rid us of these troublesome youths. So yes, dangerous by Cornish, yet astute as it happens.
As the pic progresses and we spend time with the gang, we start to understand their way of life, their part in a tough society. It’s during this key phase that Cornish brings in another structure, that of the victim and the perpetrators having to band together to fight an enemy, surely he isn’t going to make heroes out of this gang of youthful miscreants? So once this scene is set, and the aliens start to unleash toothsome hell on this part of South London, it’s battle royale time. The blood and jokes seamlessly flow together, the score booms and other characters are introduced, some either for a lighter angle – others to annoy us and maybe be set up for alien gnasher fodder?
The aliens themselves are a splendid creation, a new addition to an overstocked market. One of the youngsters calls them gorilla wolf things, that’s about right, they be jet black with spiky hair and bio luminescent jaws and claws, they move on all fours. And then it’s the last part of Cornish’s clever structure plan, for as we are given a reason why the aliens are after this particular group, so does characters transformations offer a prudent point. There is hope unbound, not just for people in movie, but for societies fractured by the way of the life afforded them. While the lesson here of people taking responsibility for their actions, to right their wrongs, is written loud and proud.
Smart and fresh performances across the board, led by the wonderful Whittaker and a star making turn from Boyega, close out the deal. Attack the Block is a genre spilcer of a picture that brings something new to the table it sits at. Trust Bruv! 8/10

**Against all odds, the party's on!**
The title itself a short and sweet synopsis. What happens in the film is a chaos during partying and with the crazy twist and turns, the story head for the conclusion. There's no any difference comparing it with other Christmas party films you had seen. Just the cast and scenario changed, that's all. While the setback for his company branch, the head of the office decides not to compromise on the Christmas celebration thrown to his employees. At the same time, he has to pursue a big client who could save the office from closedown. So his intention turns to impress him at all the cost.
Seasonal films like this should be watched when it comes out, which is during the Christmas/December. Because it will achieve a better result with us since we're set for the mood. I missed it then, but watched off the season and even though, I quite enjoyed it. Yeah, this film is not any good, yet nothing stopped me from having some fun. The comedies are cliché, but the actors were good. Fast paced narration, over hundred minutes long. Shot most of the film in a building, there's a little outdoor adventure. Overall, worth a watch, even though a below average film.
_5/10_

# Avoid
Watch a "Let's Play" of the games instead, or something.
The original Max Payne 1-3 are great games, not only ground-breaking in technical perspective at their time, but also with a gripping story, and a good amount of fourth wall reflections.
Movies based on video games rarely work out; but some deserve recognition.
This however is a complete failure. It gives the strong impression they didn't know the source material beyond a one-page summary. So, I end my review by closing the loop to its title: Don't waste your time on this flick. Avoid it.