Reviews

The Bullet Train is an unexpectedly funny action packed entertaining movie. The whole premise is basically that there are various assassins onboard a train, every one of them with their own agenda and goals and chaos ensues. The plot is somewhat complicated for me to be able to lay it out without actually spoiling the movie. Rest assured, that there are a lot of twists and turns, setups and payoffs and a whole lot of funny humorous situations.

Visually I didn't find the movie particularly memorable. I am not at all sorry for not having seen the movie in the Cinema. The CGI looks like what you'd get from a netflix movie. It gets the job done, but you are very aware that what you see was made by a PC, probably in a hurry. The Effects are not the point though. What sells the movie is the ensemble cast and the at times ridiculous funny action scenes. If you stumble upon this movie, watch it.

Bluey has been on repeat in our household for a couple months now. I have probably seen most episodes multiple times and I am still not getting sick of them. This show truly seems to have everything I think a kids show should have. Lets break it down a bit:

The format is short 5 minute episodes. You get an introduction of every major character in the intro song and you're good to go. While there are progressive themes along the episodes, mostly you can just watch them in any random order you'd like.

The plot revolves around kids and play, yet they manage to insert life lessons without being overly obvious about it. Events unfold naturally and the lessons learned don't feel forced. While it is a kids show, there are plenty of lessons and jokes for the parents as well. Bandit makes me want to be a better Dad. Whenever my toddler wants to play when I'd rather just sit and deadscroll I remember Bandit and that helps to summon a bit more energy to keep on playing. The adult themes and plot points can be pretty complex at times. There are online message boards of adults discussing what some of the episodes really meant. The humor is also partly kid and partly adult oriented. I still laugh at some of the jokes, even if I saw them 5 times already...

The Character design is IMO perfect. Simple enough that a toddler can draw the characters, yet cute and colorful.

The music is a mix of classical, folk (mostly Irish) and sort of modern dance music. I notice most often the Irish themes that are a bit updated, i.e. Played on synths and using samples instead of using an accordion. The very first episode features Mozart's Turkish march, so the series serves as good introduction of the kids to a wide spectrum of music. I have read somewhere that the soundtrack itself has pretty good sales, and I am not surprised. In fact after finishing this review, I'll look it up.

People often compare Bluey to Peppa Pig, which I personally find ugly, unfunny and a bad role model. Peppa doesn't hold a candle to Bluey!

Whenever I bring up all my issues with this movie, they are swept aside as the movie being poetic. Weirdly I struggle to find any other movies that get this descriptor (Outside other adapted works of B. Hrabal, which often display the same issues).

This is perhaps one of the best movies to demonstrate my issues with Czech movies. There is barely any story. You enter the lives of a set of (too many) characters, you linger a while and then you leave. There is no sense of an event, character development or anything that a story should contain. Here you meet a married couple that like each other at the beginning of the movie, and they do at the end. You meet the loud obnoxious brother who annoys the hell out of me and remains exactly the same at the end of the movie. Nothing much happens, nothing much changes. I guess that makes it poetic to some, to me it is boring. When choosing if this review contains spoilers I had to ask myself, is there even anything to spoil?

P. S. I don't necessarily understand the offence about the butchering scene right at the start of the movie. Pigs are getting butchered and eaten daily, most likely the crew ate a number of pigs as part of the catering and butchering is part of life and dare I say, culture at least at the rural environment. I guess this movie might have been the first time any of them saw such a thing. I hope all the offended people are at least vegans, because eating meat but getting offended by a butchering scene is the height of hypocrisy. The piggy didn't even go to waste as shown in the movie. Now that'd be offensive...

The Penguin is a sort of mafia crime story that kind of just happens to take place in Gotham. Following the events of The Batman, there is a power vacuum in the city so the previously smaller players have a go at taking over the criminal underground. First and foremost, this series has extremely well written intriguing characters. With each new episode, the characters reveal new layers. It caused that my sympathies kept shifting the whole time. The more I knew about these characters, the more i either liked or hated them, but mostly I kept on switching between the two. Expect a crime story, expect an emotional rollercoaster. This would have been an awesome series even if it were set in any universe. The playground being Gotham just made it that much better (to a Batman Fan). Gotham itself is a character and I love the Reevesverse interpretation of it. IMO we have gotten the best live action Gotham since Burton.

Honestly, when the series was announced, I sort of rolled my eyes and groaned a bit. Every franchanchise hast to be oversaturated with content nowadays doesn't it? Making series to fit between movies often feels more like homework than entertainment. At least with MCU it has gotten that far. When the first reactions concerning Penguin came in though, I had to see what it was about and indeed The Penguin is far better than I ever expected it to be. If you have read so far without seeing the series yet, DO IT.

The Puss in Boots spinoff movie takes the titular character from the second Shrek movie and sets him into his own story. The puss being voiced by Antonio Banderas is interpreted as a sort of Zorro-ish swashbuckling epic hero and hence the movie takes place in a sort of Mexico/Western ish surroundings as opposed to the medieval fantasyland of Shrek.

Having come from a post-communistic eastern European country I have been brought up with a different set of bedtime stories, nursery rhymes and children's content than would be common to someone from a more western upbringing. Keep that cultural difference in mind when you read my review.

The plot and the newly introduced characters are somewhat hit or miss. You have the newly introduced love interest Kitty soft paws whom is pretty cool. Jack and Jill are sort of forgettable and I straight up dislike Humpty Dumpty as a character. The Nursery Rhyme of Humpty-Dumpty is not something I knew as a child hence there is no callback to any nostalgia. If I take the character at face value, the design is uncanny valley, the behaviour and characterisation are unlikeable, even the voice is unlikeable. I disliked him from the start, and the plot didn't offer any redemption for him.

Most of the movie being set in a desert, you have a sort of orange filter over everything and the whole movie just looks sort of dry and dirty... ugly. There I said it, the movie looks ugly, especially compared to the sequel or even the Shrek Movies.

The redeeming qualities are the Puss himself and Kitty Softpaws. There are funny gags and Antonio Banderas as the Puss about as good as in any other iteration of the character, which is to say very. I am not yet tired of him and this is a case of a good character in a not so good movie, hence I give average rating in the middle. I don't mind watching the movie, but I wouldn't think to put in on myself. My toddler liked it, let's see how she likes the IMO superior sequel.

Spidey and His Amazing Friends is aimed at very very young children, which must be apparent to anyone within a couple minutes. What I find funny is the overwhelming negative reactions at our national movie database where it holds an average rating of 43% and the few reviews are angry at the lack of storytelling, character, animation.

Yes, the animation is lazy and often repetitive (as in they use they recycle the same movements). The plots are very childish akin pretty much to Green Goblin kidnaping kittens and placing them atop tall trees and the Spidey Team rescuing said kittens. In fact, the series is very reminiscent of the Paw Patrol given the contents, animation and general feel. Spidey just like the Paw Patrol is a cheap series meant to make you buy merchandise. I am very aware of that, yet I find the series pretty harmless, cute even. I haven't yet noticed a message or lesson I would consider harmful. Peter might start impatient, cause some trouble that must be solved and then they learn that being patient is often the better alternative than hastiness that leads to more problems in the long run. Most episodes are with such mindset. Is it a cynical cash grab from Disney? Sure, what animated series isn't though?

My two year old daughter, who is pretty much the target audience seems to like it very much and I am glad that she enjoys a character I have loved since my own childhood. It makes me hopeful that perhaps when she'll be older, we could enjoy the animated series together or some of the movies.

The movie turns out pretty much as you'd expect based on the premise and promo material. You really do get Harry Potter in his underpants and fuzzy slippers running around the city with guns bolted to his hands against his will. The movie starts up high energy and never really lets go. There is gore, violence and plenty of funny gags stemming from the ridiculousness of the whole situation. Unfortunately I felt like the tempo and the editing of the movie got rather tiring after a while. The camera constantly has to flip upside down and travel in obscure trajectories until it gradually no longer feels exciting. Imagine sitting on a fun rollercoaster, but instead of it lasting a couple minutes, you are stuck there for however long this movie is. Parts of the movie felt sort of like Edgar Wright, though while Edgar Wright would serve you a whole satisfying meal of a movie, this was someone liking the cream served with the dessert and giving you a bucket of that with nothing else. Someone might be looking exactly for that. You might be one such person, but for me it ended up being fun but forgettable.

Alien: Romulus pays homage to the Alien and Aliens, but sadly isn't anywhere near as good as either.

Credit, where credit's due. The production design and cinematography are excellent. This really feels as if set between the two movies. A point worth making is that there's even smoking featured in the movie, which back in the 70s-80s was normal and made it's way into the movie, then it became absent in the more recent prequels. Since I mention the prequels, their principal flaw was the irrational behavior of it's characters. Gratefully, that is not an issue in this case. I only really take issue with one action, to which I'll get later. The rest of the plot development, while they could seem irrational to the audience at times are IMO justified when viewed from the POV of the given character. All in all they managed to come up with a pretty solid plot IMO, which ties the movies and the prequels nicely together. You'll get your fair share of world building, tense moments and action.

I rate the movie lower than either of the Alien(s) movies, because for multiple reasons I just couldn't get into it. The movie kept reminding me, that indeed I was watching a movie.

For one part it is the overabundance of references to the previous movies. Be it, quotes, props or even moments that mimic iconic parts of the previous movies. I guess to a new viewer this wouldn't be a big deal, but I kind of rolled my eyes as Rain was getting into the space suit towards the end of the movie. The choice for casting Rook was IMO also a bad call. Fans find it in bad taste and to new viewers it's just bad CGI. I really don't see the added value here.

An another thing is the amount of plot holes and inconsistencies. Fede Alvares did a pretty good job of portraying the layout of the space station, with the unfortunate drawback that covering distance takes time. Time we are constantly reminded of. 20 minutes to impact event, 10 minutes to impact event, OK fine. While I can suspend my disbelief as to space travel, aliens and all that fantastical stuff, it needs to be grounded in some understandable rules. Covering a mile of ladder steps in 10 minutes just seems over the line and there are multiple such inconsistencies, but I want to keep my review spoiler free.

Alien: Romulus is a very well made entertaining sci-fi Horror, but unfortunately I compare it against the high standard of its predecessors which are iconic and to this day excellent. This is just kind of a fun filler for the fans, but I doubt it'll be remembered in any way near as much as the originals. Attempting to add to this franchise and be remembered at this point is an uphill battle and Fede Alvares did as good a job as anyone could have hoped. Maybe if I weren't challenged to suspend my disbelief quite as much and with a bit less references it would have been a better movie, but then some other reviewer would shout demanding exactly those things, so it is what it is.

As a last thing. When you watch the movie next time, try to put yourself into the shoes of Kay, the character portrayed by Isabela Merced. She had just the worst time of them all and she did nothing to deserve it.

This series just keeps getting better with each episode. Really hope they can keep this quality up until the end and the Emmys are certain!

What was this one about? Don't expect much action, but there are TONs of character. Most of the episode takes place in a flashback to 10 years ago where we learn about how Sofia got into Arkham, what really happened with the murders she's charged with and how she changed as a person. Sofia is a tragic character who doesn't start evil or crazy, but the circumstances make her into the character we have known for 3 episodes. It is a true batman villain where you'd want Batman to help her, to rehabilitate her. Honestly, if I were in her shoes, I wouldn't fair nearly as well as she did. The series is called Penguin, but I kind of want to see her succeed now. The series keeps playing with my allegiance. I started sympathizing with Oz, then that shifted towards Vic, now Sofia. Wherever the camera seems to point, I am eating it all up. I feel like at this point characters had been very well introduced. The figures on the chessboard are set and I have an idea how they move. The writers made sure of that we understood the setup. I can't wait to see what they do with it. Four more episodes to go.

This episode opens with a flashback to the flood from The Batman, from the point of view of Victor. If I am to be honest, the flood in the Batman didn't really seem like all that much of a deal. The water went up to the chest, people were cold since it was November but it didn't seem al that catastrophic. Well from Victors' point of view it was very catastrophic. Won't say much more to spoil the plot but the water is depicted to be much more destructive, taking many lives. That pretty much means that The Batman himself failed pretty badly, he caught the Riddler too late and it cost many lives and left the city in turmoil. What a great setup for the next movie!

Concerning the episode and the series? The Penguin himself is still the same awesome sleazy gangster character as in the previous episodes. Still pretty great. What is new is that this episode actually made me like Victor... Is like the right word? I don't agree with his actions, but I am starting to understand him better. He is no longer the passive reactive NPC that he has been before, now he makes some decisions, an takes action. The Flashback to the flood also paints him better as a person. He is becoming more 3 dimensional, interesting, intriguing. Such a nice feeling to have a well written series to look forward to again!

P. S. This is purely my speculation about the plot, read at own peril. I fear poor Victor wont make it trough the story, simply for pragmatic reasons. He is the POV Character for the audience and once that function expires with the series, I can't really see him appearing in the Batman sequel. The most pragmatic would be to build him up, make the audience care for him and then have him die which would tie the series up nicely. Purely my speculation, just want to have it posted beforehand.

The Penguin seems to be somewhat of a smaller scale crime story set in the Gotham of the Reevesverse. Well that's the impression I got after the first episode. I expect a character driven drama set in the criminal underworld of a big city that happens to have a Batman which might get featured, or not.

The Penguin gives me the same kind of Vibe I got after the first episode of the Mandalorian. A Setting that I like but not focused on it's most popular character but to tell it's own, smaller story. As long as Mandalorian kept to this, it was awesome and so is the Penguin (so far). I love opportunity to get to know the city and it's day-to-day life from the point of view of a street level character. The Penguin promises to deliver exactly this. Inevitably most series try to go bigger, raise the stakes and scope at which point usually they also introduce plot armor, plot holes, ridiculous twists for the sake of shock value which end up being shallow and feel hollow when you think about them, and the quality goes down. I hope, the Penguin does not choose to go this path. Well I am pretty hopeful that the first season won't and we'll see it there'll be other seasons or not.

Anyway, The Penguin is shown to be manipulating, intense and sometimes funny. A Godfather like Scorsese-ish mafia drama that happens to be set in Gotham. Already the first episode features some pretty violent scenes, a lot of intense exchanges and a very promising start. There isn't a dull moment during its hour of runtime. I loved Colin Farrell in The Batman and he delivers again in The Penguin. He clearly has fun with the role and we are rewarded with a pretty interesting, menacing character to follow. The appearance of Clancy Brown was a surprise to me, but I'm always glad to see him in anything. This seems to be written well, acted well, the setting is done very well. We'll see how I feel by the end of the season.

When I saw the trailer for this movie I was intrigued and perplexed as to what to expect. Before I get to my opinions of the movie, let me save you some time and skip to the info I would have liked to know before I saw it.

Is this movie watchable with small children? Parts of it are, some are questionable. When you check the parental guide here on IMDB, they mention gore but don't describe what happens which left me unsure. It is nowhere near happy three friends level gore, but there are scenes where they gut and skin the stuffed animals. It isn't any more gory than seeing meat being processed for food or leather being made so I there isn't anything traumatizing depicted. The kids are more likely to mimic the slapstick stupidity. There also a couple of adult jokes, like a brief poledance and gay rabbits. All in all, a kid old enough to have a discussion with is IMO old enough to see this.

Getting back to the review, after watching the trailer, that is really what you get for 108 minutes. It is an oldschool, looney-tooney slapstick film about a guy hunting beavers in the woods. The humor is very ridiculous and for me it worked most of the time. The only issue is IMO the runtime. The opening part is about Jean in the woods trying to get food and clothes. By the time he gets to the fur-merchant I was thinking that the movie must be nearing it's end when in fact the opening credits came on and I've realized, that about 3/4 of the movie are still left.

What follows it a somewhat aimless middle section. When I think about it, binging a 108 minutes of roadrunner might be simpler than watching this for the first time, because at this point of the movie there isn't a clear goal as to where things are headed, which makes it a bit exhausting to watch.

The merchant has a Sign with Items and their price, so it is quite apparent that Jean will go down the list. Indeed what follows feels a bit like a flash game where Jean hunts animals and gets new items which let him change and improve his tactics to make use of each new item. I'd be fun to play this as a game, but watching a movie without an endgame or goal is a bit tiring in this middle section.

Finally, Jean tries to ask to marry the Merchants daughter at which point he exclaims he wants "HUNDREDS OF BEAVERS!" cue title card at which point I thought OMG how much longer is this movie? Fortunately, not much longer. Also the last act doesn't drag nearly as much.

Throughout the movie there are small bits and pieces of plot beats mentioned. There is a Sherlock Holmes detective beaver, There is the missing first Barrel and the beavers seem to be building something big. It all comes together in the last act which is again far better paced and engaging.

When the movie finished, I left if pretty entertained and glad I have seen it. I can tell that I will watch it a couple more times and I can recommend it to you as well. They don't quite make them like this anymore. If it weren't for the dragging middle, I'd give full marks. As It is I rate the movie 83/100 beavers.

Writing reviews on IMDB, for almost 30 year old movies is pretty futile if you're after the dopamine rush of recognition and likes, so why do I do it? I guess self discovery and a personal backlog of what I've seen.

This movie, for example, helped me realize that acting in and of itself isn't enough for me, to rate a movie highly. Is it acted well? Yes, very.

Is it weird? Very much. Getting into specifics would be spoiling the plot, but rest assured that what is written in the premise is exactly what you get. I kept stumbling on the title of this movie and kept thinking 'WTF is that?'. I still don't know. A feverdream of a script. Why Malkovich in particular? Don't know. Maybe if I had been old enough to see it when it came out, I'd know but as of today? Still baffled.

This movie is abstract, weird, funny, but mainly weird. Not sure if it is a cult classic, but feels like it should be. There will be people who'll absolutely love this movie, I wasn't one of them. You should definitively give it a try though. You might love it.

This movie knows exactly what it is and has fun with it. Take all the usual, tired fantasy fetch quest-type plot, add some crude humor and a bit of nudity and you get this movie. While the acting is low effort and the jokes are beyond stupid, it kind of hits the right note with me. I can see people hating this movie, but I was laughing pretty hard when I first saw it, and some of the jokes are still funny even after repeat views. An another point, that for the low effort spoof, that the movie is the locations, effects and costumes are pretty excellent.

Charles Dance in the role of the king is awesome. No matter how bad the movie he appears in, he is always great. The leads are basically just themselves, but in DnD costumes and Natalie Portman phones it in a bit for the paycheck, but I don't mind. Sometimes I am in the mood for juvenile humor and this does it for me.

People had been mentioning this movie whenever the quality (or lack thereof) of post Endgame MCU is discussed. Yes, this was better than Thor Love and Thunder or Ant-Man Quantumania, but that still doesn't make it very good or memorable.

The movie opens with a bunch of 'tell don't show' and 'as you know' style exposition dumps. What follows is a somewhat interesting family story (where Awkwafina taggs allong for no reason at all than just to have her there). The conclusion is a CGI fight against a nonsensical monster that they introduces about 2/3 into the movie. The conclusion felt without stakes and that last epic moment where the heroes prevail felt empty and anticlimactic. Forgettable...

Sprinkle on top some not so good CGI, a lot of green screen, Awkwafina being generally annoying and you have me baffled how anyone would defend this as one of the better MCU movies. Well compared to some utter duds they managed to released perhaps, but that is a low bar to beat.

There is one another issue that bothered me throughout the runtime.

1996?!? ... WHY?

What do I mean by that. It is no spoiler that Shang Chi has a Sister and the Rings Guy Mandalorian, ugh, my bad... Mandarin, well he's their Dad. That's all good, but the movie tells you that he meets their mother in 1996. Why? There is no way that Simu Liu is 6 years younger than me and I expect that most people who watch these movies are born in the 90s -00s. Why couldn't they make it so the characters were born earlier? If you do the math, Shang-Chi is about 10 years younger than the actor playing him. His circa 4 years younger sister is portrayed by an actress who is 2 years older than Simu Liu (and she does look older than him). Very 'Grease(1978)' feeling. If I recall it correctly, Shang Chi is supposed to be 24, and his sister 20. Well Simu Liu was 32 and Meng'er Zhang was 34 at the time of release. Sorry, but CGI monsters are less distracting than actors in their mid 30s portraying early 20s characters.

So yeah, If there's nothing better in the TV as was the case with me yesterday, Shang-Chi is an OK spectacle with good action and music, but people calling it pretty good should perhaps up their standards.

The acting and setting of the movie are done well. The action feels raw and realistic and I have heard many good things about this movie. I didn't like it though.

I feel like, as the protagonist vital information is withheld from us for much of the runtime. I guess if you just enjoy the setting and are generally interested in cartels, drug and human trafficking then you might cut the movie some slack and just go with the flow.

Personally, I don't in particular find the cartel setting any more or less enticing than anything else. You wouldn't find me favouring a movie because of this topic and as such, I found the artistic choice to be kept in the dark rather tiring. While the protagonist is kept in the dark when it came to the plot, at least in universe she had some background knowledge and also information that was available to her, but not me as the audience. I found the first half therefore pretty confusing, and by the end when things were finally explained, I didn't care anymore.

I can see people really loving this movie. I happen to love Memento where the point is that we are as confused as the protagonist is, but here it somehow just didn't click. A well made movie, but at the end of the day I rate based on enjoyment and I just didn't like it much.

The first thing that came across my mind as soon as I saw the first trailer was, howcome the parents from the first movie didn't already have Anxiety, Envy and so on? I'll get back to that.

Inside Out 2 is sort of an ok sequel to a pretty good movie. I would have given it more marks, but then I'd had to redo my whole disney pixar rating thus far. My initial impression was that I didn't like it as much as I like other pixar movies, including the first Inside Out. When I thought about it though, I can't figure out why. If I were to come up with a sequel myself, I'd hardly do any better.

The plot is about growing up, fitting in, changing suroundings. There are plenty of new concepts introduced and there are more than a few funny gags. As far as I can tell, the movie as a sequel does everything right. As I wrote that line, I increased the rating even further. If I'm being objective, I don't think there is much wrong with the movie, it just didn't quite spark as other pixar movies do. The only thing I'd point out is that Envy and Shyness don't get much to do in the movie. It is all about anxiety but then expecting to flesh out each character in such limited runtime would be difficult so I guess it was a good call to give Anxiety more room because it is indeed a major emotion when growing up.

To the topic how the new emotions or lack there of in the adults is explained. They just cop out and totally unsatisfactorily retcon them in there, as if they were always there apparently.

The movie opens with Kid and Ben meeting up and competing for a red buggy. They tie and have to decide the winner, but before they can decide a local band of bad guys destroy it as collateral damage during one of their own real-estate schemes. Ben and Kid won't stand for that and want their buggy back. Ben and Kid then face off against waves of abuse the bad guys send their way, dealing with them each time with wit or muscles but never much effort.

Combined with the upbeat music the movie is simply whimsical and feel good. It is one of the earliest movies portraying the formula that has made this duo famous and it is probably the movie that does it the best before it became sort of stale. I have also incidentally seen this movie about as many times as I have seen the rest of their films combined, that is to say "A LOT".

Will a modern viewer think this movie is anywhere near 10/10? Probably not. If it had come out today and I reviewed it trough my own usual optics, I'd be much more critical. Does that stop me from giving it 10/10? Well see for yourself. I've just called myself a hypocrite and I don't care. This is one of my comfort movies that I had seen many times and will see many more. If you're interested in the Bud Spencer and Terence Hill Filmography, start with this one.

I was remotely aware that such a movie existed and since I liked the cast I gave it a go. When I looked up the movie on our national movie database, the rating was average at best and for the first half hour I had no idea why.

The movie starts of pretty strong. It introduces us to the bad guy, the no nonsence gunslingers that came to save the day, all is setup for a fun movie. So what gives?

I suspect, the root of my problems stem in the source material which I have not read, and an attempt to adapt it truthfully. Or maybe just plain old subpar writing.

The acting, locations, costumes are all well done. The movie is shot well and nice to look at. The plot feels somewhat episodic though. There doesn't seem to be a plotline that would drive the movie. At first they want to arrest the farmer, and then there is a process, and then, and then, and then. By the end of the movie, it doesn't really feel like a cathartic conclusion, but it just sort of ends. The execution of the subplots is still done in an entertaining way, I didn't fall asleep and I write that as a sleep deprived, working parent... The word I am looking for is unfocused. Subplots are fine, but I'd like to see a through line of a movie and this one seems to lack it, and so I agree with the overall rating and also give it just slightly above average marks.

Should you watch Abigail? If you like gory, jet funny horror movies then I certainly think so. The movie reminded me most of from Dusk till Dawn and while that is a far superior movie, this would go nice as a double feature.

Similarly to from Dusk till Dawn, the movie starts pretty unassuming and attempts to mislead the viewer. It might have been a better experience not to know anything about the movie so I could have been potentially misled by these attempts, but alas if you watch the trailer or even the poster, you pretty much know what the deal is. If they hadn't told you, people would probably not have gone to the cinema. I guess the surprises are ought to happen down the road when the movie hits regular broadcasting and reaches people who have never heard of this film. If you are such viewer and reading this review, I kind of envy you.

Anyway, Abigail as you could guess from the trailers and posters is a vampire flick. A pretty fun one at that. The violence is treated with humor and the gore is pretty spectacular. I found some of the acting a bit lacking, but not from Alisha Weir. Vulnerable or menacing, she portrayed the character very well and I see a pretty bright future ahead of her. The reviews seem average at best, but personally I really enjoyed it and I'd sort it between the better Vampire movies out there.

When the movie were to come out, the premise and pitch seemed somewhat weird to me. Having watched the movie, I still feel the same.

The story is one where an utility worker or in this case a cleaning lady becoming close with a captive and helping them escape. Only this time it is an amphibian creature, they fall in love and sprinkle some cold war espionage on top. The plot was groaningly predictable from the get go, with no real surprises or twists. The movie is pretty nice to look at. The costumes, effects, sets are all great. You really get that 60s feeling. The movie is well done, I rate it bellow average because as I said the plot is predictable, derivative but most of all I found the behavior of the main protagonist somewhat unbelievable.

Given that this is a romantic drama, then all works out in the end, but edit the first act a bit differently, change the music and it could very well be a pretty scarry horror movie with some possible body horror implications for the third act if the protagonist had proceeded as she did. I mean, If I were sent to clean up a bucket of blood from the laboratory ground, I'd be pretty unlikely to go anywhere near the creature that caused it. This lack of self preservation, respect and fear of the unknown seems a bit unbelievable to me. You might say I am a cynic, but put this same behavior in an adventure, action, sci-fi or horror movie, and you'd get the whole theatre to shout at the girl to get away from that thing, but when the tag is romance, should I be OK with it? The movie did nothing to make me believe the relationship between the two characters, but honestly, I am not sure if that was not intentional. Perhaps I failed to read between the lines, that I should have been disturbed by the movie all along? Perhaps it'll grow on me, or other reviews will help me understand how this got to be the best picture of the 2018 Academy Awards.

If you have made it so far past the premiere without getting spoiled, congratulations! I wouldn't have minded waiting for VOD, but spoilers just keep popping up on social media, articles and reels without looking for them. It isn't that the plot is being spoiled, but rather the main appeal of the movie. Going to see the third instalment of the Deadpool franchise, you probably know already what you're in for. Crude humor, violence, jokes and cameos. Said cameos would have entertained me more, would I have not known that they were coming.

The Deadpool movies cannot in my opinion work in a vacuum. Just watching these 3 movies without awareness about the stuff they are referencing is almost pointless. To get the most out of the third one, you should be at least aware of comic book movies since the late 90s (not gonna name them though).

Me being a 90s kid, watching comic book movies as they came out, I feel like I was the target audience, and all the gags, fan service and cameos really made me laugh. I rate the Deadpool movies all pretty much the same, this isn't any better or worse than the first two. You know the drill, you'll get what you came for.

As a Wolverine movie, it is surely better than Origins (most things are) but not even approaching Logan (few movies do). What I'd change or improve on the movie, is that the story is a bit underdeveloped. Particularly the backstory why Logan is so morose is only told, not shown. But I guess I'd require further cameos that would bloat the budget...

On a Sidenote: Dafne Keen has matured nicely and Emma Corrin has a voice like honey. Does she do audiobooks? She should!

Anyway that's all for now,

bye bye bye.

The title pretty much sums up my honest feelings upon finishing the movie. Let me get one elephant out of the room. I think the R-Rating is unnecessarily harsh and I disagree with the 'Horror' label. Going into this movie blind, I had no idea what to expect, waiting for it to turn into an R-Rated Horror might actually leave you pretty disappointed. While there is some violence, blood and swearing, the movie never turns into anything really scary or gory. What I'd call the movie instead is 'tense', so a thriller with satiric black comedy elements. What the movie reminded me most is American Psycho, though not as good.

I will not give you a plot summary, because that'd defeat the appeal of the movie IMO. Best is to go in not knowing what will happen and form your own opinion. Similarly to the foods served, the movie itself feels meticulous. The cinematography feels precise, polished and pretty, so is the acting. Most people will remember Anya Taylor-Joy and Ralph Fiennes, but Nicholas Hoult and his fanboyism are what make this movie a comedy at times.

I think the movie does an excellent job at intriguing you and holding your attention. From the get-go you know, that something isn't right and you want to know why. The ending ended up being somewhat anticlimactic, and a lot of reviewers seem to think the same. It might actually be part of the whole satire, as in when the novelty of the experience in a pretentious restaurant fades, you realize that you've just given rent money for some raw fish with fresh vegetables and you're still hungry. This movie also left me somewhat hungry, and I can't just yet decide if I feel it was intentional or not. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, and they simply had a good idea for a film, but didn't quite know how to finish, so they've settled on something.

All in all, I think the movie was a fun experience that entertained me for it's runtime. Knowing where the movie leads and how it ends might grant a bit more insight as to what is actually happening. If nothing else, I like how the movie 'looked' aesthetically, so just for that reason alone I'd rewatch it, if I stumbled on it again.

I guess giving an overall review of the Alien is beating a dead horse at this point, since the movie came out 45 years ago and it has had an impact on Sci-Fi, Horror and pop culture to a point, where you'd see a chestbuster reference even in a kid movie like secret life of pets.

The movie tells the story of the crew of Nostromo, a sort of tow-ship in space transporting ore to earth. You might have heard the phrase 'truckers in space' which describes the crew fairly well. This isn't some sort of exploration full of scientists, but rather you have the bare minimum including navigators, maintenance, pilots, captain and one science officer. The crew intercepts a signal which they investigate which leads to them encountering a hostile alien life form.

There are a couple of factors that make this movie timeless.

Firstly, there is the retro-futuristic setting with an actually competent and logical crew. The actions are believable and relatable, unlike in the more recent sequels where apparent scientists behave very questionably, but I digress. Secondly there is the creature itself. For one it is based on the designs of H. R. Giger known for his bio-mechanical art with very erotic features. Add on top of that the life cycle of the creature which is a not-so-subtle allegory for sexual assault, you get a movie that disturbs on a primal level.

What further enhances the experience is the fact that the creature is hardly ever seen in the movie. Just like JAWs, Alien proves that less is indeed more, and similarly to JAWs, I feel like the resulting movie might not have been entirely intentional from the start. Bare with me for a bit before you hit that dislike button. My point is not so easy to communicate in text. If you have seen the movie, try and look for the extended Lambert scene. As of August 2024, it is available on Youtube. The scene features longer shots at the Xenomorph which make it fairly obvious that we are looking in fact at a person in a suit. One that limits movement and vision no less. The extended scene breaks the suspension of disbelief and pulls you out of the scene. If was a stroke of genius to edit the movie in the way it was done for the cinema. Seeing the creature less, leaves more to the imagination and thus makes the experience more universal. The disadvantage of modern possibilities with CGI, is that we can often see too much, which might be scarry to some, but never to all. The imagination is still the best 3D engine IMO, because it is subjective. You insert what you find scary.

On this point, I'd like to share an anecdote from my childhood. When me and my cousin were about 8, he'd seen the movie and told me about it. I was terrified of the mere thought of the Xenomorph for years, while he seemed to be quite all-right. When I finally saw the movie, it was nowhere near as horrible as I'd imagined it, and I came to admire and respect the movie for it's impact and execution. This really is timeless. From the thematic undertones, to the execution, acting, music and setting, this seems like one of those movies where every part seems to come together. My current rating is 9/10 but I don't really know a reason why I shouldn't bump it up to 10... so I will.

Thank you for smoking is a satiric and funny drama depicting a lobbyist defending tobacco products. Aaron Eckhart is charismatic and entertaining to watch, even to the point that one might idolize him and miss the whole point of the movie. Nick Naylor IMO is the antagonist of the movie, though the plot being told from his POV that isn't necessarily obvious. The standpoint of the production team on the matter of smoking is made pretty clear that for a movie about smoking, cigarettes are strangely missing. Not one in sight, let alone someone lighting one up. The closest we get to a cigarette is Nick looking inside an empty box. Well that, and there was a cigarette on an old black and white picture of the Marlboro man. Personally I find the lack of smoking in the movie a bit weird, on par with the attempts of a senator depicted in the movie, who would have old movies and photos digitally altered to hide the cigarettes. Whether it is hypocrisy or an intentional further poke at censorship, I am not sure. I am really not familiar with the writers and director to be able to read between the lines. Never the less, this is a fun satire/drama, though I don't feel like it is exceptional or excellent enough that you'd have to go out of your way to view it ASAP if you already haven't done so.

P. S. Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes get it on in this movie... sort of...