filmtoaster

VIP

3

This movie is a masterpiece really gives an insight into the Jokers mind while remaining very emotional throughout this psychological thriller
Let’s just say Joaquin Phoenix has done a remarkable job as playing the Joker, where he really does make The Joker as disturbing as he is always meant to be. We first start off seeing Arthur Fleck (The Joker) working as a clown for this company that sends people dressed up as clowns to different places in the city to entertain customers. We learn from the start that Arthur has schizophrenia he was placed on a psychiatric mental hospital temporarily in the past, where now he is out trying to fit into society on seven different medications while seeing a councillor in the meantime to try and get better to feel something positive in his life. You feel sorry for his character through his descent into madness as you learn all the hardships that he has been through, like been beaten as a child to still being taken the mick out of and beaten while being disregarded as an adult, which makes me think he wants society, but society does not want him to exist with his horrible condition. You will find yourself on an emotional journey in this film really does bring The Joker into a humane light while also being Psychotic with the reasons behind that. He also reverts to like a mind palace when he is unsure or someone is being horrible to him, which it can be either thinking that he is somewhere or with a particular person when his not or his uncontrollable laughter that calms him down as it is kind on his go to defence mechanism with his schizophrenia to try to make himself feel calmer. When we see him dancing down the stairs it gives him a humane happy side showing that he is still a human not just a mad killing monster that we always have perceived him to be, therefore he really does need help when people just ignore him and cast him off as kind of a waste of space in society. Arthur does not know how to react to everyday situations is a struggle for him, so killing someone in defence to him if they have really wronged or mocked him is fair game, even though we feel anger inside in our everyday lives that can be relatable we know how to make sense of our feelings knowing right from wrong with certain levels, which Arthur with his condition he cannot really comprehend. Even though these rich guys are horrible people and are very mean to him, which we can see Arthur has a point to the fact that if someone like them been killed people would be out for blood, compared to if someone like him had been killed they would just be passed by and ignored like street rubbish, therefore something needs to be changed. Arthur as The Joker he is trying to invoke a movement against people who think less of him and are mean to him even though the way he is going about it is the completely wrong way to go about it. We see people are being killed on the streets as a result of his killings to force change, where a peaceful campaign could have been more a lot effective in the long run instead of just madness and chaos. Overall, I would give this film a ten out of ten I defiantly recommend you watching it really does play with your mind it is a psychological thriller that can be scary to have you on the edge of your seat, therefore well done to the phenomenal acting along with the cinematography that really sets the scene for the film. Just to bear in mind that this is a stand alone film based on DC Characters, so some of the plot of how it fits in does not make sense, however that is how it is meant to be portrayed to give the shocking reality that raises awareness about these issues as they are real life people with these mental problems that they should be helped not ignored by so many people.

This movie is outstanding. Keep in mind when you go to see this that this is not a typical comic book movie that is just a ton of pow pow action, haha chaeesy joke, pow pow. It's basically a movie about a man going crazy but set in Gotham and that man ends up becoming the Joker. It is far more similar to Taxi Driver than it is to even the grittier Marvel movies. The only comic book movie I have seen which has even a remotely similar tone is Watchmen and even that is not as similar to it is to Taxi Driver or Apocalypse Now.

So as a short recap it starts with Arthur, an insane and severely depressed man. He has a condition that causes him to laugh uncontrollably when he is uncomfortable. Literally everything in his life is shit, he gets his ass kicked at work by punk kids, he gets shaken down by his employer, his mom is completely reliant on his help and they live together in a cramped and squalid apartment and his therapy is barely keeping him hinged. In the background Gotham is experiencing lots of political turmoil around the government and wealthy residents showing a complete disregard for the well-being of the needy and Arthur is hit hardest by this. His psychiatric services are cut, he loses his job, his mom is expecting a wealthy benefactor to save them which Arthur knows is not coming, the TV show that Arthur loves and the host of it who he admires coldly shames him for something he was proud of. The shit continues to pile on him as he becomes more deranged and eventually he starts to crack and becomes more and more violent along with much of the rest of Gotham who identify with his same experiences.

The themes of this movie are easy to understand but they run extremely deep as well working on many levels. The top crust of society looking down on others, passing judgement, acting without any repercussions or any true understanding for the devastation they are causing for others. The prime symbol of this is Murray Franklin, this rich talk show host who Arthur initially admires and fantasizes about interacting with in the future but when it comes down to the reality he just stomps over his dreams and aspiration and treats him as a prop to use for his own joke. It's funny to the people looking down with Murray but it's devastating to Arthur. Joker coming onto the show at the end and turning the tables with his "Joke" is also symbolic of the other side of the message. Joker and the clown protests are not good guys, they are not right, they are not helping, they are rabid and reactionary and fueled simply by fury without logic. They have solid reasons for why they are mad but when it gets to the point where you are that beaten down it is hard to see if there is any way to improve it and so reckless fury is all they can muster.

The detailed execution in this film is OUTSTANDING and is really what takes this film to the next level. The acting of Joaquin Phoenix in obviously one of the greatest performances in recent memory. The way he talks, the innocence of his dreams juxtaposed with his tainted reality, the brutality, the way he contorts his body to make the viewer cringe and painfully stare without being able to blink or look away, the facial expressions, the crazy way he runs, the dancing, all of it. It's something you have to experience and feel as you watch it. The script itself is impeccable, the faux twists, the delusional fantasy that is impossible to pick apart from the reality, the dialogue (my god the dialogue during the Murray Franklin show bit was beyond perfect), the art style that puts you in the gutter with Arthur, the careful pacing to make sure that you saw and understood every bit of why Joker comes into being, the music and general sound editing, etc. etc. etc. it's nearly flawless.

Another part that needs further appreciation is the use of ultra-dark humor and the affect it has on being in the audience. This movie
is one of the more brutal movies I have seen in recent times and as it goes on there are these subtle jokes woven into these shocking and disturbing scenes. They are jokes that most people won't laugh at (like locking the door so a dwarf trapped in the apartment with Joker has to ask to get out after seeing a friend's head bashed against the wall, or this situational humor on the talk show with the inappropriateness of the drunk driving joke in the middle of Joker's final rant) but they are really funny if you have a certain sense of humor. The amazing thing this does is that it gets the sick bastards like me who find it funny to laugh uncontrollably in the audience. This has two opposite purposes; the people who laugh are now experiencing the uncontrollable laughter and cold stares that Arthur experiences every day. On the other hand the people who don't laugh get these creepy out of place laughs coming from the people around them in the theater and they know that they're surrounded by sick bastards. It is THE most creative use of humor I have ever seen in a movie.

If we are talking about down sides I can't really speak to that much. The only things that I think might give it a lesser score are the fact that it is not a movie for everyone. It isn't a comic book movie at heart so if you're wanting a Avengers-esque experience then you're SOL. It's extremely brutal and will make you uncomfortable multiple times throughout and it isn't fun action brutality where there is a good fight and one guy wins, it's blowing people's brains out in a subway with a revolver and then chasing down wounded victim #3 type action. I can see how people might not like the lack of justification with the Clown rallies but that is also part of their purpose as I said earlier so I can't knock that. Overall it is a super complex movie that is also easy to understand at a basic level which is an awesome thing because it's hard to do both and I feel like it allows anyone to talk about it and learn the depth.

Let me start by saying I have been a Godzilla fan ever since I saw Godzilla vs Mothra back in the 80s. With that out of the way I really liked this movie. It is in no way like the 98' movie (which was terrible) but instead kinda takes the Clover field route by showing how the fighting of the monsters really impact human. In this movie it's very clear that human need to get the hell out of the way! While there is not an overly amount of scenes showing all out fighting with the monsters you still get a feel for the current situation with Godzilla. This also attempts to ground Godzilla the creature in reality but doesn't 100% succeed. Some of the explanations for why things are happening are not always believable. Still, I enjoyed seeing Godzilla take on these "enemies" and eventually kill them. One interesting twist, which I had never seen in a Godzilla movie was he used his radioactive breath. In the movie he uses it almost as a last resort, seemingly because it takes a lot of energy from him. While this is inconsistent with any Godzilla movie before it I rather liked the idea. It would probably take a great amount of energy to create that blast of power. This is best seen when Godzilla brutally kills the last creature with a prolonged blast of energy that knocked him out till the next day. So if you cam looking for a movie that showed nothing but Godzilla fighting all the way through or a "Man v Monster" movie...this may not be the movie for you. However, give it a shot...you may like it after all.

The Rise of Skywalker had been on my "to watch" list even before it came out. Because of all the negative backlash this movie received, I never decided to watch it in the theaters. Recently, this movie was leaked online and as soon as it did, I decided it was time to give it a chance - despite everything that was being said and all the spoilers I accidentally read while browsing Reddit.

After watching the movie I began to think about things they could have made better, but I did enjoy it. Whether or not if it was because it was another Star Wars film has yet to be clear for me.

In the end, I felt that these movies could have been made better than what they were, as it opened up the possibility of introducing more threats than the ones we are far too familiar with in the Star Wars universe. For example - When Palpatine was revealed to be alive he could have introduced us to more Sith for Rey to face. Which makes sense in the end, since Kylo betrayed Palpatine and the Empire.

I just don't understand how Kylo Ren was the only Sith Rey had to face this entire time.

Also, Having Rey denounce her last name that her parents gave her, despite it being from a sinister origin , made me kinda lose some respect for her in the end. If she really wanted to have the Skywalker name she could have made it : Rey Skywalker Palpatine. Or Rey Palpatine Skywalker. Any way would have been fine.

Leia's CGI was terrible right for the get-go. It immediately felt like a recording from the previous movies, which I know was planned, and I believe they could have made it more convincing with the money they had. They pushed out the movies too soon and it leaves a bitter taste, just like GOT S8.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First off, I haven't played the game 'Alone in the Dark' and this is the first Uwe Boll film I've ever seen. From the reviews I've read, the scathing criticism of Boll I've heard and all the message boards on IMDb, my expectations were way low. Game adaptations are inherently bad, the only exceptions I can think of are 'Mortal Kombat' and the 'Resident Evil' movies (yes, I like Paul W.S. Anderson too).

I'm a Christian Slater fan, for starters, and now I'm a Uwe Boll fan too. I reckon, as B-grade movie directors go, the guy's got talent. He handles the sex scene very well (without it being fifteen minutes long and featuring an inordinate amount of nudity and fading in and out all the time) and the film was fastly paced and tight. The visual effects were also amazingly well-done for such a film, the creatures (I forget what they're called) especially.

I could overlook the problems with the script and the acting, but only because 'Alone in the Dark' is so suspenseful and genuinely interesting at times. There's never a dull nor slow moment to be found. I reckon 2/10 is rather harsh. I've seen worse films than this; much worse. While it may not sit well with gamers, 'Alone in the Dark' is one of the better B-grade horror films I've seen in years, just as long as you don't take it seriously.

Man, these Trump 2020 campaign ads are getting pretty elaborate.

I don't know how to rate this right now. It feels like The Room 2.0. So hilariously partisan with it's image of what a right winger looks like, while basically telling a story how a racist, misogynistic guy goes off to shoot cuck porn because he's desperate for pussy. It's almost so bad and outlandish with it's acting and scripting that I was laughing a good portion through. If you don't take this seriously, which I don't know how you could, you can get some fun out of this. It's also a classic crux of, "Everything you said is wrong, but I'm not going to explain why," sort of thing. Not the obviously misogynistic parts and the bits of clear mental illness, but the politics. Ronnie as a character shows no growth and stays the same from the start, to the end, only changing is his incite to violence. The mindset lingers though, which begs the question how this is social commentary. The amount of people like this main character that exist are astronomically slim, you can't help but feel the writing suffers from an forced perspective. The music is at least decent. Lambert, you may be the next Tommy Wiseau.

Once again Dinesh D’Souza exposes the nefarious past of the Democratic Party in Death of a Nation. Beginning with an examination of the left’s reaction to the election of President Donald Trump and it’s accusations of fascism, D’Souza looks at what true fascism is by studying the regimes of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, as well as discussing FDR’s and other American progressives’ admiration of European fascism and their attempts to incorporate it into the New Deal policies to get America out of the Great Depression. He also discusses how Andrew Jackson’s forced relocation of American Indians and the South’s “One-Drop” laws that discriminated against blacks influenced how the Nazis went about creating the legal framework to strip away the rights of Jews. The historical re-creation scenes are kind of low-budget, and some of the connections and assertions that the film makes are rather tenuous and generalistic; but that’s somewhat to be expected given the complexity and enormity of the topics. Still, the interviews with historians and other experts are incredibly fascinating and bring to light a lot of interesting information. While it’s not exactly subtle (or completely fair) Death of a Nation is a compelling documentary that reveals the hypocrisy of the left.

I had a day to gather my thoughts and I think I need to watch this again. This movie is a hot mess. The script seems so bare bones, but with so many opportunities to be biased at the same time, combined with terrible actors.

The first death, Lindsey, is shown as the girl walking home alone at night, but when she is attacked she barely tries to escape, instead deciding to stick around instead of calling security or running away. Boom, dead.

Riley, an abuse victim, is studying at a university with a long history steeped in the appreciation of men. She was sexually assaulted 3 years prior by the former head of another frat house who drugged and raped her. Unfortunately she never sought therapy, and all her sorority sisters either don't acknowledge it or tell her in so many words to get over it, coercing her into joining their shit dance number as their 4th with the knowledge that her abuser is there.

Riley seems to have some history with her teacher who singles her out during class, blaming her for a petition to fire him. In reality it is her social justice warrior friend begging students to sign the petition. She is loud and proud, however, stomps all over riley throughout the movie. She's a terrible friend.

In the sorority house, there is evidence of strange happenings but no one except Riley acknowledges it. For almost the entire movie the cat is missing. Girls are bring attacked and going missing but no one takes it seriously. Riley goes to campus security and is almost comically shut down. The guard even tries to say, boys will be boys. We get it, the movie is feminist, but just stop shoving it down our throats.

The bodies of the deceased are hidden around the school but no one even finds them until the climax. The actual twist of the movie was pretty good. I really liked it, but the getting there was so terrible and garbage. Even the camera work is shit and I don't get whats going on with the sound and echoing.

There's one particular scene where the girl with the cat gets choked and when the bad guy pulls the christmas lights around her neck, the camera abruptly zooms in like it was done post production. The same effect youtubers use for comedy.

There's a bust of the school founder and when put in a specific frat house, it activates the spirit of the founder, who encourages men to behave like alphas. Their hazing ritual includes reciting a Latin inscription and smearing a black liquid on the pledge which possesses him with the spirit of the founder. Riley has an opportunity to destroy it but just chooses to do everything so slowly.

I feel like this movie is terrible but I'm not sure.

Ang Lee's "Hulk" is nuts. From the comic book panel effect to the insane and possibly chemically-induced performance of Nick Nolte, this seems closest to what a Hulk movie ought to be.

It truly seems as though Bruce Banner's transformations turn him from a normal skin-and-bone human being to an animated monstrosity born into the real world. When he turns Hulk, he looks like an animated freak straight out of a comic book. Call it primitive CGI if you want, but I think it works almost perfectly. It makes the Hulk himself scary. At times it nears "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" levels of "Toontown".

I don't even care about Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly or Sam Elliott. Just give me the scenes with the massive, swollen Hulk leaping across the desert Southwest. His breakout from the military lab, his battle with tanks, his foot race with Army helicopters, it's all just a blast! Not to mention the brutal fight between Hulk and three deformed Nolte-dogs.

The only real drawback for me is an underwhelming ending battle between Hulk and his father, Nolte-thing. It's really hard to see what is happening in this sequence, even on Blu-Ray. The two are fighting in the clouds and underwater, I think. It ends so uneventfully. Maybe a bit to artsy of an attempt to wrap things up.

Since the plot is remarkably the same, I’m just going to copy-paste my original plot analysis from the original film:

“Halloween is about Michael Myers, a man that many years ago, murdered his own sister as a child. Locked away for years, he finally escapes and wreaks havoc on a random set of teenage friends, but not before stalking them first.” – Review of Halloween (1978)

Oh sorry, that’s not exactly accurate – this time, his victims aren’t as random as the original movie. This time, you more or less discover as the film moves along what you discover in the 1981 sequel – that (spoiler alert), Laurie is Michael’s younger sister. So his murderous rage is all about killing his family – that much you know about in the original series, but it’s more than that now, because you now understand on a deeper level how truly horrible his childhood was before he became the monster. In the original film, Loomis briefly explains how he intimately knows the extent of Michael’s evil ways – in this film, we see it. We see his abusive and repulsive family, his budding interest in death beginning with animals, his fascination with masks and self-loathing, and his untamable hatred towards the mental hospital but surprising respect towards Dr. Loomis. We see all of this because it takes its sweet time introducing us to his history that we needed the first time around!

More than that, it introduces us to more than just an idea that this man is evil, but also a physical representation of one heck of an intimidating beast of a man. Seriously, this guy is huge. He’s a hulk. The original film had a typical guy in a mask. Why was he wearing a mask? Because it’s Halloween, I guess…this movie explains everything. It took away all of my complaints about the first movie and then some. The best way I could describe this film is as if they took the script for the original movie, got a better director, got a better writer to rewrite certain scenes and introduce integral elements, got better actors, invested in better equipment and technology, and hired a different director of photography – because it actually shows us what we needed to see that the first film left out. In my honest opinion, this movie improved on just about every level.

However, where it didn’t improve – was partially in casting. I do believe this is the best guy to ever play Michael. It made the most sense, but the rest of the cast was either just fine, or a bad choice. Now, I like Malcom McDowell as much as the next guy, I think he’s a wonderful actor, but Dr. Loomis wasn’t the right choice for him. Loomis needs to be Michael’s opposite, someone caring and understanding but ultimately hurt when he can’t get through to Michael’s inner child. Donald Pleasence did a pretty good job in the first film, but McDowell looks and sounds too evil to play this type of role. It almost went to John Hurt, which would have been perfectly fine. I would have also accepted someone like Liam Neeson in that type of role. Not McDowell. The rest of the cast did a fine job at acting, but not so much at creating something memorable…and the original did when it came to Jamie Lee Curtis.

In my honest opinion Halloween was better than the original – but only on a technical level. It didn’t change anything about the series that was already good to begin with. It just improved on the parts that the original lacked. If you watched the rest of the classic series, you’ll notice that they’re always struggling to explain plot holes in order to make another movie – this movie mostly got that out of the way from the beginning as to not run around aimlessly trying to find direction. As far as horror goes, it’s a solid slasher film. The series has never really been a favorite of mine, but I definitely respect the film went with this remake. Check it out!

Given what happened with the production of the film it is amazing that a coherent story came out at all, much less a pretty good one. Following one classic is difficult enough, but following two is nigh on impossible. The furore over the opening that abruptly resolved the fate of certain characters from the previous film is understandable, but the bleak narrative provides a satisfying conclusion to Ripley's character arc, notwithstanding the film that followed. Equally, the religious overtones form an interesting backbone, even more so in the improved workprint release. It is not particularly scary, a standoff between the Alien and Ripley in the midpoint of the film providing the only real moment of tension, and most of the secondary characters are forgettable alien fodder, an accusation that could never be levelled at the previous films. Unsurprisingly, Charles Dance stands out here as the one new character worth exploring and his relationship with Ripley in the film is the most interesting one - it is unfortunate the film dispenses with this once the Alien makes its presence known. The decision to shoot the final action scene from the Alien's POV provides the film with a unique sequence as both prisoners and creature attempt to stalk and lure each other, though this does rob the film of some much needed tension. Not a classic then, but still an interesting entry into the Alien series.

Why the shit would you get someone known for incredibly dull horror movies to helm what's meant to be "The Avengers" of the monsterverse?

This film is in dire need of a director. It looks like it was pieced together in the edit because so much of it is just shots of actors looking confused at a camera. As in, they just don't seem present in the scene in a logical way.
Millie Bobby Brown can clearly act, but she doesn't seem to know what character she's playing. I sure as hell don't either after watching this.
Rebecca Hall looks like she's just stood up at a table read.
Eiza Gonzalez clearly just got told "kinda do a Michelle Rodriguez impression IDK" at some point and that's all that comes across.
Kyle Chandler is in about two scenes and frankly why did they bother? His presence makes little contextual sense, and he also doesn't seem to even know what continent his whacky high jinks daughter is on at any one time, which gives that whole plot an element of farce.

Godzilla doesn't even seem to be the same creature from the last movie, not in terms of their physical presence or actions. Something is just 'off' about his face and head that makes him seem weirdly artificial.
Kong was well done overall and his arc was the only thing that even tried to make sense in the film and saved it from getting worse than a 5/10.

TLDR ? This movie is Disingenuous. At best, it's a Ghoulish dark satire of the republican party during the Bush/Cheney era. Except, they forgot to insert comedy or satire. As a result, it's grim and insulting, the parody is often at the expense of the audience being too stupid or uncaring, or religious. Large chunks of american history are deleted, omitted or filtered so that the movie can focus on the death toll of the war, or the "Wazzup" meme, etc.

large chunks of Dick Cheney's history don't make it into the movie, or are stylised / exagerrated / spoofed.

It is a well made disaster of a movie. Care went into making this.

But, it's as bad as Holmes & Watson, Star Trek Discovery, The Last Jedi or Ghostbusters 2016. It's deeply unlikeable at times, and it is actively trying to rewrite history as it goes. I'm not a republican or a conservative, i don't follow politics, this is a highly deranged film that is deceptive at times, and I doubt that any of the events took place, as a result of the ham-fisted effort at painting Cheney as some mastermind villain, working in the shadows. It's only missing that villain laugh track during the more hammy moments.

The most sanguine part of the movie is that they treat the WTC bombing and 9/11 properly, but they draw an enormous bow throughout.

part of the movie hinges on the use of executive power being wielded by Dick Cheney through the Bush Presidency, to the degree that they'll infer it becoming part of the reasons why Cheney brought the war from Afghanistan to Iraq, and that he also used the position to secure oil reserves in Iraq before the war started, as well as ignore questions / receive kickbacks from Haliburton contracts, and infer that he brought a lawyer into the emergency/control room during the "crash" period of 9/11 post-pentagon collision, as airline flights and air corridors were shut down, airports were being closed, and private/civilian aircraft were being tracked and landed in airports, etc. So that he could wield this Executive Power without asking the senate or the Congress or the President for approval.

It walks the line of defamation, and yet, apparently it's from the guy who made Anchorman 2 and Step Brothers, Talladega Nights, The Other Guys. Brad Pitt and Will Ferrel financed this movie, i think. Their companies are in the titles.

All of the Actors do a great job. I even like Annapurna for their video game productions (Donut County, Gorogoa, Edith Finch, Florence), and i've seen a handful of Annapurna movies, like Phantom Thread, Her, American Hustle, and Sausage Party...

I went in with no preparation, and assumed it would be a dark comedy with political overtones, because, politics and Steve Carell, and I can see Aquaman later on. It can't be that bad, it's Christmas week.

This movie has the unfortunate effect of making you hate theatrical movie releases and critics, and perhaps all movies.

Yet, it's so well made, it has style, artistic credibility, and it's directed, shot and lit perfectly, the sound is on point, the acting is sometimes forgettable, But it's similar in style to other "moral" drama films, like "The Big Short", leading into the Global Financial Crisis where they pander heavily on people's motives and actions of "we're getting away with it", sic. The pandering is incredible.

It is a better political movie than most, but it's utterly manipulative and disingenuous at it's heart, and nothing can make that funny or amusing.

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9 is unhinged and deranged, while Vice, is just powdercoated hatred and bile, trying to hide under progressive and democratic ideals. it's more like an upmarket youtube political conspiracy movie talking about Hilary Clinton's "SECRET Brain surgery", George Soros, the Koch brothers or the Jewish conspiracy movies you get recommended after watching "The Young Turks" or "David Pakman".

They even sink low enough to include a "Ghostbusters 2016" poke at the audience in the end credits by lampooning the partisan nature of the film, in an attempt to skirt criticism and outrage

A sideplot about an hour in, has a series of scenes in a focus group with the same strangers. The marketer/political consultant asks the group to raise their hands to choose between climate change or global warming. Another time, it's a choice between Estate Tax or Death Tax, inferring that marketing & political think-tanks, along with Fox News, used politically correct language in the 90's and 2000's to make conservative ideas palatable.

At the end of the movie, Cheney is in a cross-chair interview, after just having had a heart replacement. As the interview starts, the scene pauses, and Cheney/Bale instead, turns away and lectures the audience directly (invoking Frank Underwood's, stylised yet sociopathic 'lectures' in House of Cards) , saying he did what was best for America, despite the cost and the lives lost in the war(s) sic. It's just on the borderline of "helping make america great again" and a typical Frank Underwood self-justification, we fade to black, get a terrible americana/Fly Fishing title credits to the music of West Side Story's Puerto Rican version of "Coming to America" and we return to the Focus Group, mid-credits. The final scene has the consultant ask what people thought about the movie. A member of the group, complains that the movie insults conservatives, while the neighboring person insists it's factual, with the first man then calling it liberal propaganda, and then calling the other a libtard, sic. and hits him, both getting into a fist fight, while the camera turns away, to another woman, who turns to her neighbour in the room, and says she's going to enjoy the next Fast and the Furious movie (sic).

The implied comment is that they did the research, and had to improvise the story in-between, because nobody would speak about Dick Cheney's history or family to set the record straight. When/If you see a biography of Barack Obama in a few years, attending child brothels with kevin spacey in indonesia, receiving oral sex from a pansexual transvestite, while he's snorting a line of cocaine off a preteen boy , while another person is handing Barack a membership form for the Democratic Party ... Vice, is going to be the movie that they quote and use dialogue from.

This is the kind of movie that Alex Jones and infowars would make of Hilary Clinton & Barack Obama, by selectively omitting pages from a biography, and denigrating the characters and roles they undertook. The excuse would be, they couldn't confirm the story, so they took liberties and stuck with the facts, being transcripts, police records, licenses, marriage dates, etc.

I'm Australian, I genuinely don't care about the politics, but the smearing of the republican party is like a sledgehammer at times.

There are several Saturday Night Live level 'jokes' or skits/scenes that don't even make you cringe, they're just deeply unsettling attempts at humor or levity. Care went into the timing to paint several scenes as 'dark', or darkly funny at the expense of others. I expect people would laugh at them, it didn't connect with me, or the other 5 people in the theater.

It's not quite Fahrenheit 11/9 levels of insanity, on the contrary. It walks the line of parody, conspiracy and defamation neatly in a lighthearted attempt to skip 20 years of context, in a 2 minute conversation.

There's an early moment, perhaps 40 minutes in, where Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld is ruminating to a younger Dick Cheney in a random hallway of the oval office, about the imminent bombing of cambodia while Nixon is talking with Kissinger in a spare room of the Oval Office to avoid recordings. Mid-lecture, you hear Carell while we see a village about to be bombed mid-lecture, a typical cambodian/indonesian forest village, women and children sitting around, before explosions occur, and the scene changes back to Carell & Bale, unphased.

This kind of manipulative sledgehammer is used, repeatedly to invoke... satire? outrage ? compassion ?

This occurs about 5 or 6 more times, with even less subtlety.

Alfred Molina's "restaurant" scene, Molina's character offers Cheney and 3 seated guests at a restaurant table, Extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay as menu options , is ham-fisted, but it's executed darkly and humorously, similar to say, Aaron Echkhart's Thank You For Smoking scenes, lampooning Tobacco, Firearms and Alcohol lobbyists.

It's the kind of movie where you could let things slide if you were a lifelong US democrat, because it tries to tell harsher truths of the political and military consequences, overtly, by flashing to bombings, drone strikes, torture, rendition, deception and greed, during the more infamous moments of nixon's career and Bush's presidency.

And it profoundly relies on Fly fishing to represent Dick Cheney, as other movies do (2007's Shooter) to the point where they use gaudy Americana as Fly Fishing decorations (rockets, drones, Oil Rigs, missiles, the white house, Surveillance cameras) in the end-credits.

There's element's of Zero Dark Thirty in the invocation/flashes of torture, waterboarding, confinement, exposure, even the Abu Ghraib incident/leak with a prisoner being dragged by a Dog Collar by Lynndie England (the "work safe" versions) appears here. and rendition scenes along with the "Shadow government" themes of Dick Cheney's role as Vice President during George W Bush's tenure. It is highly implied several times that Cheney set himself up as the Executive, the CEO in charge of the war by undermining George Bush and, being responsible for the birth of ISIS, hiding reports from the president, etc.

They walk the line when it comes to defaming the Cheney family, there's also an implication of Lynne Cheney's father, Wayne Vincent murdering his wife in an argument by drowning, and of Lynne Vincent, being raped by her father Wayne in an over-edited and dubbed scene that was heavily muffled to avoid the censor noticing. Wayne, is seen pointing to his daughter during a muted, abbreviate shouting scene implying alcoholism and frequent domestic violence.

It extrapolates the most defamatory versions of people, and highlights that absurdity.

It takes what should be parody or simulacra, a 'bad saturday night live' sketch comic scene, and extrapolates moments as their cheapest moments. It's also high budget, they take Sam Rockwell's version of President Bush, Governor Bush, and rotoscope him into the more infamous moments of Bush's Presidency, i.e. the mid-war "Mission Accomplished" presentation on the Carrier Deck.

It is hard to come to a film like Psycho without at least some awareness of the likely surprises in store - the famous moment in the shower is so indelible in pop culture that it has lost its shock factor. Yet, in the context of the film it is still a surprising moment. What is so clever about Psycho is that the first half of the film suggests an entirely different genre and approach. Hitchcock creates a fascinating set-up and moral dilemma that keeps the audience intrigued so that by the time our heroine makes her decision to resolve this issue, you could be forgiven for forgetting the title of the film. But it is the arrival at the Bates Motel and Perkins’ entrance that immediately signals a change in tone, specifically a fascinating conversation between Perkins and Leigh in the motel parlour. It is Perkins’s nuanced performance throughout the film that suggest both a softly spoken innocence and a creepy underlying darkness to Norman Bates, and this is never more clear than in his introduction, as the focus of the audience shifts from Leigh’s character to Perkins. There is little to be added to the already iconic shower scene other than it is a masterclass in editing, music and performance (the shot that pulls back from the victim’s eye is still both horrifying and utterly mesmerising). The second half of the film could have struggled to live up to this and to a certain extent it does, but in the ensuing investigation, Hitchcock of course has one or two more surprises in store that are best left unspoiled and Perkins’ performance ensured that the loss of one great character would not be detrimental to the overall film. It is a shame the final scene feels the need to over explain the events of the film, but the final shot certainly leaves a great impression.

This was definitely more for Godzilla fans than it was for critics. It was way better than the 2014 film that got Certified Fresh. The film is just badass. Not perfect but....bad ass.
They do over-do the family drama again though. Especially when the family drama makes no sense. Mark Russel (Kyle Chandler) blames Godzilla for the death of his son. He wants all monsters dead.
Mark’s wife Emma (Vera Farmiga) says screw mankind. The monsters will cure the planet of Climate Change. So yeah in another words who cares if anyone else loses family members. Due to her plan to unleash all monsters.
Her daughter Madison (Millie Bobbie Brown) sticks with her. Despite her mom teaming with some bad men with guns. Who kill some nice scientists right in front of her. So yeah, Mark is the sanest one in that family.
Even if there’s too much of the humans and a silly plot. This is the best of the Hollywood Godzilla movies. Critics are just wrong. One even said the Roland Emmerich version is better. What drugs is that critic on ?
The battles are some of the best done of any monster vs monster battle. Unlike the first film this one has a ton of Godzilla history to it. It shows him way more and shows the character great respect.

(Note: This was the 70mm roadshow presentation of the film.)

This is a film about justice and tribalism and how the two lead to some strange, unsettling outcomes when the they are mixed together.

To the point, the film is filled with little moral thought experiments that underscore the idea of when we think it's wrong and right to kill, and explores how that's affected by which tribe they belong to. From Chris Mannix's tale of Major Warren burning down a prison, thereby killing a number of both Union and Confederate soldiers, to Warren himself goading General Smithers into trying to shoot him so he can shoot first, to Mobray's speech on dispassionate justice versus frontier justice, this is a film concerned with when dispensing lethal force is right.

But it's also concerned with how station and affiliation affect how others are treated and when something is truly just or honorable. Major West, despite his accomplishments and prowess, is derided and demeaned because of the color of his skin. Daisy Domergue is equal parts dismissed, patronized, and underestimated because she's a woman. It's no coincidence that one of the film's final scenes is a black former union soldier and a white rebel renegade cooperating to hang a woman in an excruciating fashion because it's the "right" way to honor a fallen comrade (who demeaned the both of them).

There's a lot to unpack in all of this. It's hard to say what Tarantino is saying beyond a broad level "who we are and where we're from shapes our view of what's right and who is fair game," but there's a lot there. The opening shot featuring a crucifix covered in snow hints at these broader themes, and details like the motley make up of Jody's gang to their wanton killing in order to save Jody's sibling lead in interesting thematic directions.

But apart from the larger thematic material, the film absolutely works at a basic narrative level. The first half of the film has a wonderful Clue vibe to it, with a series of characters slowly introduced and thrown together in interesting ways, where not everyone is what they seem, and the audience is left guessing, if not whodunnit, then who's going to do it.

The characters and performances are almost uniformly tremendous. Each of the major characters is well-sketched, and have interesting characteristics that lead to predictable but no less intriguing conflicts. The stand outs are Samuel L. Jackson, who is enthralling from the word go and nails the peak of the film with his monologue about the younger smithers; Jennifer Jason Leigh who gives a wonderfully unhinged performance as Daisy Domergue, and Tim Roth who has a delightful Christoph Waltz-ian flair to his bits of screen time. But everyone, from Russel to Goggins to Dern makes an impression.

The structure and performances help keep the tension high, whether in quiet moments in the stagecoach where it seems like things might become too rowdy, to the powder keg of the main cabin where mistrust grows and tempers flair. The first half of the film, where all the tension builds and is maintained, is more enjoyable than the second, where the answers are revealed, and the aftermath in interesting, but not nearly as engaging as the build of the mystery.

Still, despite (or perhaps because of) the usual Tarantino blood and guts and non-linear storytelling, the film in never boring, and while it works as a whole, the stage-like feeling of the production also allows individual scenes to feel like little vignettes, that could still be compelling or effective separated from the movie as a whole, even as they take on new meaning when juxtaposed.

I have my nits to pick -- Tatum feels a bit miscast (though his appearances are brief) and Tarantino's narration felt a bit obvious and unnecessary--but this is still a superb film from a great director. It's beautifully shot, with grand, frigid vistas that emphasize the isolation, and interesting camera movements that convey both the extra man spying on the proceedings and the heightened nerviness of individual scenes. It is also, for all its tension and thematic material, a damn funny movie, that had me chuckling more than a few times. I would not necessarily among my favorite Tarantino films, but that just speaks to the heights he's been able to hit. The Hateful Eight is still a fun, tense movie with some interesting thematic heft beneath the gunplay and quippy violence. It was well worth the cost of admission.

"Baggage", can be a GOOD thing when yours makes it on time across the pond with you on your flight from London, especially if it's first out of the chute and onto the pick up carousel. But, it's NOT such a good thing if one carries quantities of the negative kind into a new relationship, be it an IRL relationship, or, in THIS case, the relationship between a viewer and a filmmaker.

It was to be expected then, when, Anime fans and enthusiasts expressed trepidation after the trailer for "Alita: Battle Angel" dropped. They can all still recall the cringe-fest that was M. Night Shyamalan's, "The Last Airbender", which IMO was DOA from the moment it was cast, and, don't get them started on "Dragonball Z", lest you want a wall of text recounting it's cornucopia of cinema sins.

Now, I'm not here to go down the rabbit hole that is often expressed in the current virtue signaling trend of "whitewashing" outrage. We're not talking about the bad old days practice of Black or Yellow face, where obviously Caucasian actors were darkened or "Orientaled" up to play faux versions of the real deal, nor of instances where it is done for comedic irony, as in Robert Downey Jr's, "Tropic of Thunder' performance, nor, the Waynan's Brothers in "White Chicks". However I DO find it interesting that no one seems outraged in those two instances, or, that the same folks who express shock and dismay at ScarJo's casting as the titular "Ghost in the Shell", ALSO express outrage at those who expressed outrage, at the idea of casting Idris Elba as James Bond. Seems like there's no pleasing some folks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKvqhlhXq9s

But I digress....

My point is, that we, as consumers of visual media, often let ourselves be influenced by the BAGGAGE we carry with us, when watching a film or show. Our expectations, based on PRIOR experiences, can subtly, or even greatly influence our enjoyment of a given offering. I have to wonder how die hard Trekkies would react to STDISCO, if they had NEVER seen Star Trek ANYTHING before? I myself can recall dismissing Wild Wild West, the movie, as soon as I saw Will Smith was cast in the lead, because for me Robert Conrad would always be the personification of James West. Yet, I had the opposite reaction to seeing Denzel Washington cast in the lead of either the Equalizer, or The Magnificent Seven, perhaps because lack of familiarity had not left me ingrained as to who these characters were. (Both great movies IMO by the way) Or perhaps it is just the power of the Denzel. And, even with all the "outrage" over the casting of "Ghost in the Shell", I still enjoyed the movie overall, although it fell down in a few places. Again I was unfamiliar with the source material.

Unlike the disappointing experience with "The Last Airbender", which I went into being a FAN of the Nickelodeon series as well as "The Legend of Korra", I was completely without opinion concerning Alita: Battle Angel. What I DID know was, that it was produced by James Cameron, who doesn't put his name on stinkers, and was directed by Robert Rodriguez, whom I have liked since El Mariachi. BOTH know how to deliver epic, believable worlds and characters, so I put my faith in that, and went in unbiased, with no expectations either way.

And I am SO very GLAD I did!!!

I saw the movie in IMAX / 3D, and, while SOME movies / Directors throw obvious, rather lame 3D effects to boost a lame, insipid storyline, or, OVER use it to the point of distraction, here, they found the perfect balance, with the 3D adding an immersive depth to the already impressive "26% more IMAX picture". If you watch the trailers, you can pretty much figure out which scenes really WOW in this format.

To address the elephant in the room, yes, Alita's eyes DO remind one of a cross between a high tech sex doll (not that I would know) and Margaret Keane's "Big Eyes" waifs. (Cristoph Waltz was in that one too) Yet, here, you quickly become so immersed in the story that you no longer notice. The story begins with Waltz's Dr. Ido discovering Alita's discarded torso in a dump, while he is scavenging for parts to fix up the neighborhood cyborgs, which are plentiful, and not trying to assimilate anyone. Apparently in THIS world, if a body part breaks, gets diseased, or hijacked (yes I said hijacked) it can be replaced, much like a crumpled bumper in a fender bender. Dr. Ido just happens to have a teenager sized cyborg body handy which is explained later in the film, and, a little JB Weld here, and a couple of stitches there and Bobs your Uncle, .. instant Teenage Mutant Ninja Angel...., (sorry) Alita awakens, but has no memory, and, as many teenagers are, is all questions, curiosity, and hormones, all at once, especially when she meets the "polite, hard working", and, all around handy guy Hugo, who IS teenage, but NOT mutant.

A visit from Ido's Ex, Chiren, gives us some (slightly disturbing) back-story and we meet her boss, Vector, played by Mahershala Ali, once again being chauffeured around by Viggo Mortensen, (just kidding) but who IS apparently a big deal, with connections to the sky city of Zalem, which floats above them, and is "the place were the cool hang out, the SWASS like to play, and the rich flaunt clout!" This is where everyone wants to someday go, "by any means necessary", yet Dr. Ido and his ex were apparently exiled from there, no backstory given.

Thrown in are a nice mix of teenage discovery and bonding, combat sports, bounty hunters, robot dogs, robot bounty hunters, set piece fight scenes, featuring robot dogs and bounty hunters of the meat and robot varieties, vivisection, nanobots, betrayal, heartbreak, and general cinematographic carnage....., and just when it was getting REALLY good, the credits ran, and NO ONE MOVED, hoping for one more glimpse of this world, or a Marvel Comics style peek at what is to (hopefully) come.

When I got home, I immediately looked up Alita, both the Anime and the Manga, and found a 2 part 1990's era Anime, which the movie, with a few minor changes and liberties, seems to have followed almost shot for shot in places. So, Kudos for at least partially following the source material, even if changes were made to make a coherent, box office ready story.

Was it perfect for those with the baggage of their own expectations? That's up to them to decide. Did I find it to be an entertaining movie that allowed me to suspend disbelief and immerse myself in Alita's dystopian hive of scum and villainy, and root for her to be victorious in the end? Yes sir!! So, May we have another??? PLEEASE????

Gun Fu, Gun Porn, Stylized Ultra violence, call it whatever you want, but, one thing is certain, John Wick 3 delivered it all, and then brought you second and third helpings. Tom Cruise gets a lot of cred for doing his own increasingly elaborate stunts for each M.I. installment, but I'll see you EVERY stunt the couch jumping Mr. Cruise has done his ENTIRE career, for the first two action sequences in this movie ALONE! Also, Keanu Reeves isn't just harnessed to a plane or rappelling down the side of a building and leaping across roof tops. Reeves weapons handling and combined intricate fight sequences aren't the result of Steven Seagal style quick cuts, Fast and Furious edits, post SFX, or tricky camera angles to disguise whats actually happening. It's VISCERAL, because the camera lingers on the mayhem so that the viewer can savor each strike, slash, stab, and gunshot, and ALL the accompanying carnage. Not in Sam Peckinpah slo-mo, but in real time, yet, somehow, one is still able to take it all in, and then the sequence would end, just about the same time you remembered to BREATHE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=20&v=nrawit53W7s

Yes, it's over the top, but this is the world John Wick inhabits. A culture of hired assassins, an entire society, existing just beneath the surface of the one you and I can see, the one the rest of us inhabit. A society with rank and file members, management, service, and executive classes, and RULES. And it is the rules, which have kept order from devolving into chaos for hundreds of years, that have made them "different from the animals".

For the love of his deceased wife, a car, and a puppy, John Wick reached his proverbial "last straw". (John Wick 1) For his loyalty to a blood oath, which was broken, he violated a cardinal rule, and was marked for death. (John Wick 2) Yet, using those same rules and oaths, (and his particularly unique set of skills) he was able to braid for himself a life-line, tenuous as it was, but a life-line nevertheless. The powers that be cannot allow that to happen, and seek to intimidate, punish, and if necessary eliminate each of those who extended him a thread of that line, even if they technically only "stretched" the rules. What they have failed to realize is that John Wick's reputation as the "Baba Yaga", the proverbial Boogie-man, is not only well earned, but, if anything, it is UNDER stated.

Those who were paying attention saw that we actually DID get quite a bit of origin/back story on the eponymous Mr. Wick, as well as a glimpse into the world of the contract killers, as to how the contracts are put out, and the hierarchy that pulls the strings behind the scenes. I look forward to seeing this expanded upon in future installments

Kudos and Props this installment to Iron Chef Mark Dacascos and a host of other Asian Martial Artists as the closest thing John has to true competition, yet, they are at the same time fanboys who geek out at getting a chance to fight him.

To Halle Berry, for NAILING her fight sequences, then being a trooper and not quitting when her scenes cost her a couple of broken ribs. Her character obviously has some issues with the menfolk, considering how many she shot in the "kibbles and bits. Also props to the trainers of her two pups, and the stunt men for allowing same said puppers to gnaw precariously close to their kibbles and bits until she shot them. OUCH!

In case you doubt me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=66&v=xa2RJPrY2Og

To Laurence Fishburne, for making sure that Neo still has Morpheus as a Mentor, even if you "sometimes have to cut a Mo Fo".. All we need now is Carrie-Anne Moss' Trinity to show up in the inevitable Part 4, and all will be right in the Universe. (make it happen writers)

10 out of 10 - Best of the 3 so far IMO

EDIT: There has never been a movie like this that I didn't like but I really wanted to read and talk more about with other people. I guess Darren Aronofsky at least got people talking about his movie, even if people didn't like it.

What a weird movie. I really thought the sound design was great. Really creepy and creates great tension.

So Jenifer Lawerence is Mother Earth and Javier Bardem is God? Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer are Adam and Eve and the heart crystal is the apple of eden? I don't know much about the bible but that is what I got. I guess the message Daron Aronofsky is trying to say is we treat the Earth like shit. It is going to kill us all but its bound to repeat again? I don't know, it is a weird movie.

EDIT2: So after seeing this after a long time of not thinking about it I realized that Darren Aronofsky really hates humans. The bat shit crazy third act can not make up for the boring first two acts. And knowing that this is just the bible made it even worse. I don't hate this movie but I'm definitely not a fan.

This is so bland and inessential, they might’ve as well put it directly on Disney Plus. Why are we investing 300 million dollars in an action/adventure flick starring an 80 year old grandpa? Look I have a lot of respect for Harrison Ford, but everything that’s wrong with this movie is connected to the larger issue of him and the franchise being way past their expiration date, so this never should’ve been greenlit in the first place. Nothing is offensively bad here, but it’s more a case of wrong decisions piling onto each other.

I understand Lucasfilm’s decision to hire a director who just delivered two crowdpleasers in a row, both of which were acclaimed by normies and snobs alike. Mangold understands what makes the world and character work, but he doesn’t get the soul. Right from the opening scene, the movie looks drab, underlit and generic. There’s almost no imagination to the set pieces, and some of the more impressive stuntwork is undone by poor effects work. Take the Tuctuc chase. Ford’s stunt double puts in the work for the wide shots, but when you cut to a close-up of characters in front of a green screen, you’re not exactly selling the sequence. It’s not going to stick on my brain, it’s too unremarkable. Again, what’s the point of making an Indiana Jones movie if there’s no viscera or imagination to the action?

Then there’s the story, which is also very by the numbers and low on risk. It feels like wheel spinning, which in theory could be fine (the Bond franchise got away with that for decades) but there’s nothing to hold my interest. Some of the new mechanics introduced during the third act I found to be underwhelming, and this is coming from someone who didn’t mind the inclusion of aliens in the last film. All of the new characters are boring and underdeveloped (especially the villain), despite the actors putting in decent performances. It’s quite funny how this suffers from the same problem as Furious 7, where villains will show up on the same location as our heroes despite there being no story reason for it. Occasionally there’s a brief fun interaction, or a fun set, or a good visual idea (like the final shot, for example), but that’s not enough to fill its bloated runtime.

4/10

As far as I am concerned this is the ONLY version of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice that exists. That other thing that Warner Bros. released in theatres is good but isn't a patch on what Snyder originally created. Snyder took an awful lot of flack for the theatrical release, but whatever you think about him as a film maker, you will have sympathy for him once you see how the studio took a hacksaw to his movie. This Ultimate Edition isn't simply another scene or two which adds 30 minutes but doesn't change the movie, it is a sprinkling of expansions to scenes throughout that solve its much maligned choppiness and lack of flow. Apart from the improved editing which allowed the film to breathe, this version of the movie makes you care about the characters more, especially Superman. Following the journey of Clarke Kent in more detail, seeing him actually do some investigative journalism, and understanding his motivations makes a huge difference. This is especially the case in his death at the end of the movie. Without earlier shots of him doing "Superman" things such as helping people after the Capitol Building bomb, as was the case in the theatrical release, I simply didn't care when he died. With the added tidbits in the Ultimate Edition, Supermans sacrifice brought me to floods of tears. Even though I knew what was coming, the gut punch was overpowering! This character expansion also benefited his nemesis Lex Luthor, who with just a few additional scenes (that he isn't even necessarily in), transforms from a spoilt brat into a criminal mastermind. While it was previously suspected, it now becomes clear that he has his fingerprints on everything, from the Africa scene by blackmailing the witness, to intercepting Wallace Keefe's cheques from Bruce Wayne, and Keefe himself being an unknowing puppet of Luthor carrying a bomb in the led lined wheelchair so Superman couldn't see it. Overall, my recommendation if you haven't seen Batman V Superman yet, or if you saw it in the theatres and hated it, is to give this version a watch. I loved it.

Contains major spoilers !!!!!

Huge and utterly dissapointing. After TFA I said this movie would make or break the story. For me it broke.

Where to begin? Let´s start with my biggest problem.

After that rebel cruisers bridge was hit and Leia was thrown into space we saw her drifting in the cold empty vacuum of space. This was a powerful scene and I had tears welling up in my eyes thinking that would be a great ending for the character dying how she always lived. Fighting. I did not realise, or care, that it would have been a huge coincidence had they written this scene at that point not knowing Carrie would pass away. But as I said powerful scene. And then she opens her eyes and floated back into the ship still beeing alive. At that point I was seriously considering leaving the cinema. It´s scifi but, please, without as much as a hint of an explanation that is just awful writing. It is Disney all over it. Anyway I stayed and watched the rest but in general I was done with the movie.

There are tons of other things I didn´t like.

• way to much unnessesary and stupid humor. Most of the time it does not fit and just destroys scenes. Holding for General Hux - that might have been OK once but two or three times it just becomes goofy. And there is more of this througout the movie.

• the writing was all over the place. So much things going on that do little to nothing for the general plot and just add playtime. Like that whole thing with the codebreaker, going to the casino. Just sugarcoating CGI.

• and speaking of playtime - way too long. About five times towards the end I thought it was over. It could have ended when the reached the rebel base- no let´s add another battle. When they realised they where trapped. With Luke going out to face Kylo. At some point I would have been OK with the movie ending with the First Order defeating the rebels, everyone dying, and the franchise done with. But of course that is not happening and the movie ends.....no, just show us a kid with a broom looking at the stars and indicate he could be the hero of a future movie.

• in many ways the continuation of storylines is not satisfiying. They introduce Snoke in the first movie without an explanation who he is, where he comes from and how he got there. Would have been OK, could have done later. So now he´s dead without so much as a fight and there are questions left to be answered.

• what about Rey ? Are we really to believe her parents were some drunk and drifting scavengers that sold her for money like Ren said ? That would be very stupid because how in the universe could she master the Force in ways even the best Jedis or Sith couldn´t without as much as years of training. Another void in the storytelling.

• too many, shall I call them, homage scenes ? A lot of times I felt I had already seen this movie. The scene in the throne room f.e. Snoke = Emperor, Rey = Luke, Ben = Vader, the destruction of the rebel fleet playing in the background and the Ben killing Snoke is like Vader killing the Emperor. I know that was said about TFA as well but I feel it´s much worse here. The Battle of Hoth reviseted would be another thing where they re-did some scenes to a T. All that was left was tow cables.

Those are just some examples of the things I disliked and maybe there could be satisfactory explanation later. There is a lot more but it would take too much time to write it down. But I doubt I will go to the cinema for the next one.

To be fair there where some positives in this movie.

• I liked the scenes with Rey and Luke althought they did not really lead anywhere. But some nice insights into Lukes story after ROTJ.

• The conversations between Kylo and Rey where very interesting and I thought there was really potential to steer the story to something new and exciting. Not happening.

So overall I was not satisfied. I really like TFA, it built some expectations that where all crushed with this. As far as I am concerned I am done with this new story. I am not not very eager to find out what else the canibalise and how they try to write themselves out of this. There is nothing left.

This is my view of the movie. If you liked it I´m happy for you.

May the Force be with us. Always.

I've had an amazing experience watching the movie premiere in Venice, I've been waiting for this movie for a long time and I was not disappointed in the slightest.

It's a gorgeous movie, it's disturbing but moving at the same time, violent at times, but also subtle. It's a different and fresh spin on the character and on the cinecomic genre as a whole and Phoenix delivers an amazing performance portraying a version of the Joker we've never seen before, he's not the villain of someone else's story, he is the hero and villain of HIS own story, and the audience can be orrified by him, but we can't help but feel for him at times.

Without giving anything away I would recommend to go and see the movie not expecting to go and see an action packed, but gritty cinecomic, I suggest going in and watch it pretending that it's not even about a famous comic villain, but simply a movie, I think that people will appreciate it more in that way, not comparing it to the cinecomics we've seen before, but thinking of it as a normal movie.

P.S.: People will of course compare Phoenix to Ledger, I don't think it's possible, they give a totally different percormance because they portray totally different versions of the character, and I think it's going to be hard to compare them, you either prefere Ledger's version or Phoenix's but only based on the character, the actor's performances cannot be judged by comparison, they're both great. Just enjoy the movie

Well, I'll never listen to That's Life by Frank Sinatra in the same way again, that's for sure.

Before I start, there are two groups of people who need to be addressed:
- Regarding the people who are saying that it's too violent, and a movie based on comics shouldn't be like that: please, go back to watching Dora: The Explorer.
- Regarding the people who are calling it a Taxi Driver or King of Comedy rip-off: Is Mr. Robot a Fight Club rip-off? You have to see the difference between ripping something off and taking inspiration + adding your own ideas to it. Also, Taxi Driver is a vigilante story, something which this isn't.

So, most of the praise you heard about this movie I can absolutely get behind. The cinematography and score are without a doubt Oscar worthy. Joaquin Phoenix is front and center, and he absolutely shines. It is a full on character study, and the movie shows everything from the Joker's point of view. It keeps the movie focussed, but it has to be said that there are no other interesting characters to get invested into, something that other character studies don't forget. The pacing is also very well done. It doesn't feel like a slow movie, and the final 20 minutes are something special. To me, however, the first 90 minutes are a lot more interesting. I love the fact that we get to see an in-depth exploration of the causes of social exclusion and what leads to Arthur's downward spiral. Phillips very wisely points to a variety of causes at very different levels of society (elites, government, punks), while not forgetting that some blame also falls into the hands of Arthur himself (e.g. his megalomania). This is a very strong and nuanced message.

And then there's the film's other message. When it comes to a film like this (a protagonist with a downwards spiral), the movie often starts with making you feel sympathetic towards the character. The Wolf of Wallstreet does that. Breaking Bad does that. And Joker also does that. But then there's a point where the character crosses the line, a moment which you can almost pinpoint in this movie, namely the scene where he kills his mom . From that point on, a movie should clearly condemn what he's doing in order to not give out an immoral or wrong message. In The Wolf of Wallstreet, Di Caprio starts to lose everything. In Breaking Bad, Walter White starts to lose everything. Phillips, however, goes out of his way of condemning what his character does. Instead, he plays swelling and upbeat music during the film's darkest moments. Moreover, Joker gets a happy ending , and no other characters have a sincere conversation about the atrocities of what he's doing. In other words, the movie gives off the impression of still being on his side, thereby presenting violence as the answer to this man's problems, and I can totally agree with some of the critics who have a moral problem with that. I understand that they wanted to stay with Arthur's perspective through the end, but this comes at the cost of one of the biggest mistakes a film like this can make. At the same time, one major flaw doesn't make a film bad. I mean, Gone With The Wind is immoral in the sense that it is racist, but is it a bad film? Absolutely not.

7.5/10

Belle... A collection of music videos glued together by a really badly written narrative.

Belle is one of the weakest animated movies i have seen in the past few years, and that makes me really sad, as a fan of the director i went into this expecting an 8 or an 9, but what i got is a 5 at best.

Belle has a interesting idea, with its reworking of the "beauty and the beast" and its child abuse themes... But it fails to build on its characters and to explain basic premises of its own world, making it for a very boring and bland experience.

Most of the things we thought would be relevant were completely ignored and absolutely useless, we asked ourselves watching "did she get some disease and now is unable to sing in the real world and that is why the U is an escape?" No, they never address this, she just fails to sing and vomits once because the movie wanted to i guess? They keep all her "friends" completely irrelevant and underdeveloped until the last quarter of the movie, so i basically don't care about any of them in the end, they never explain the socio economical structure of the U world... How does this work? They say the avatar is made automatically based on people physiognomy, but the avatars are crazy different in form and species, how can that be made from ones physiognomy? How is the invitation system decided? Who is invited and why? Why even have an invitation system instead of selling the app or freely distributing it if that ends up irrelevant to the story? Why show us a very interesting singer character on the start that rivalizes our belle if you are just going to forget her for the whole movie? How to know which avatars are AI controlled and which are actually people? Is it possible do die in U? If not, what is the relevance of all the conflict we see?

Belle raises too many questions and answer very little, it presents us with an beautiful and interesting virtual world but tells us NOTHING about it and how it all works, it presents us with futuristic technology in a world that seems stuck in the 2000s, it gives us many bland and uninteresting characters with only one personality trait each and develops none of them... There are so many problems, so many drawn out scenes... That it all gets boring and tiresome...

And.... That makes me really sad, the music is GREAT, the visuals are BEAUTIFUL, the music scenes are AMAZING... But they are few and far in between and the rest of the movie... Is not interesting, they present us a nice duality of belle and the beast, but their interest in one another is so out of nowhere and forced that it doesnt feel even a little bit real or natural... There is a great scene that develops the characters and emotional connects, but it is only in the last quarter of the movie... When it has already lost all my interest and attention... and the plot of child abuse is ok and very important... But it feels shoved in... The main plot... Feels shoved in... Oh, and how they find the boy... Well, that was just the worst "investigation" bit i have ever seen...

I really wanted to like this movie, but there are just too many unanswered questions, just too little character development, and a plot that is just generic and bland enough to lose my attention... The visuals and music alone are not enough...

At the end, i feel like they made some really great music videos and didnt want to release it as just animated music videos, so they wrote a really bland movie around it and shoved a controversial and important theme(child abuse) to appeal to peoples hearts in an effective but kinda cheap way.

If you don't believe in Santa after watching this movie, you're just "denying your inner child."
This is my favourite Christmas film of all time. I used to watch this constantly as a kid (no matter what time of year it was!) and I still watch it every year at Christmas. It never fails to give me goosebumps, because it always takes me back to being a child, and it is an incredible reminder that magic really does exist.

I'm also a big fan of Home Improvements, and Tim Allen is equally as hilarious and entertaining here. Not only is he a brilliant comedian, but he really knows how to play those sentimental scenes that tug at your heart-strings.
Eric Lloyd who plays the young boy Charlie is fantastic throughout and can equally play a multitude of moods in a believable way to make the story flow so well.

When I was little, I always found the role of Neil, played by Judge Reinhold quite irritating, because he is too much of a grown up and his lack of understanding childhood is unreal. But now I've grown up, I understand that most adults are as stupid as his character is and so I've began to sympathise with his point of view, even though I entirely disagree with it. I understand he's MEANT to be irritatingly stupid!

Another character who deserves a special mention is Bernard, one of the Elves, played by David Krumholtz. When I was little, I used to colour in a bit of paper with a dark green felt tip pen and stick it on my forehead, so that I could have "hair" that looked like Bernard's. (I'm not sure it did look QUITE like his hair, but it was worth the effort.) I've always had a soft spot for Bernard. Even though his character can be quite bossy at times, he can also be quite endearing at other times. He has a lot of compassion for people who DO believe in magic, but doesn't have any time for people who don't.... A bit like me! And that's why I identify with him the most. Like the rest of the cast, he plays this part so well.

Both the background music and the soundtrack songs help add to the festive feel of this film, and helps bring Christmas and Santa to life. If you STILL don't believe in Kris Kringle after watching this movie, just remember this dialogue from the film:

Charlie: Have you ever seen a million dollars?
Neil: No.
Charlie: Just because you haven’t seen it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

This is THE DEFINITIVE Superman movie. With truly spectacular cinematography, a heartwarming coming of age story, enthralling action and perhaps the best superhero movie soundtrack ever from Hans Zimmer, this movie hits every beat for Superman fans new and old.

As a DC comics fan growing up, the critical response to this movie prevented me going to watch it at the theatre. I mean who wants one of their favourite superheroes being "humourless", "too violent", and "not epic enough"??? Well, I can truly sit here now having said "lesson learned". Never again will I allow critical response to prevent me from experiencing something I had waited a lifetime for. I will never get to see Man of Steel in the theatre, and this movie was shot for the big screen. Some of the shots are truly beautiful, especially when he wakes up in the ocean with whales, and when he learns to fly in the snowy mountains.

The story is often criticised for not having the kookiness of the original four movies with Christopher Reeve - and don't misunderstand this for hating on the first few iterations, I have nothing but fond memories of growing up with those films - but I challenge anyone to watch those movies now and claim that they still hold up. A truly great movie as well as standing the test of time, has rewatch value, and Man of Steel is one of the few superhero movies that I have watched time and time again. This requires a great story.

The story of this movie focuses on a boys relationship with his fathers, and his coming of age through those guises. His cautious and protective Earth father who tought him the morality and goodness we expect from our Superman, who sacrificed himself in order to keep his sons secret; and his Kryptonian father who encouraged him to embrace his difference and be the man Earth needs him to be.

A bonus is that the relationship between Lois and Clark doesn't seem forced. You get to see how she is a great investigative reporter and through her reporting she discovers Superman's true identity. By protecting it, you can see Clark's appreciation and the weight of not being able to talk about it to anyone - something that bothers him throughout the great flashback scenes as wonderfully portrayed by Dylan Sprayberry and Cooper Timberline - being lifted.

The character development of the antagonist, General Zod is done in a way other superhero movies can only be envious of. The message that this character, like all other Kryptonians are born with a specific purpose, in this case to protect Krypton at all costs, comes across well. From his perspective he is the superhero of his own story, trying to save his planet and his people, and that is the truest of tests for supervillain development.

And this brings me to the epic and controversial (for some reason) third act. As mentioned earlier, Superman has a strong moral code instilled in him by Jonathan Kent, which is shown throughout the flashbacks. Any observer who doesn't see that Snyders portrayal of Superman has the most morality of any Superman in cinematic history is simply not paying attention. He doesn't spin the Earth backwards to rewind time just to save his girlfriend like in the original, and he doesnt go back to Smallville and hook up with Lana because the love of his life Lois is ignoring him a little bit like in Superman III. That Superman, despite all of his displayed morality (e.g. where he refrains from fighting the bullies) feels he must kill General Zod is one of the most powerful moments in superhero movie history. He repeatedly begs Zod to give up his quest to destroy Earth and humans now that his quest to return Krypton has failed. Zod makes it clear as day that he will NEVER give up, and that he will destroy humanity at all costs as an act of revenge. What was Clark supposed to do? He was left with no choice! Add to this the fact that Zod's laser beams were inches away from killing a whole family, Superman reluctantly had to break his neck. Yet unlike other superheroes he did not gloat in victory, the pain and anguish in that scream that follows is filled with the heartbreak of breaking both his moral code and killing one of the few other fellow Kryptonians in the universe.

Overall, this movie gets better every single time I watch it. If you haven't watched it since it came out and had mixed feelings the first time, please give this movie another try without the immediate negative reviews that were extensively covered in the media at the time of release. It truly deserves it. Man of Steel is THE DEFINITIVE Superman movie.