Download Black Panther FULL HD 1080p

Download Black Panther EN DIRECT

King T'Challa returns home from America to the reclusive, technologically advanced African nation of Wakanda to serve as his country's new leader. However, T'Challa soon finds that he is challenged for the throne by factions within his own country as well as without. Using powers reserved to Wakandan kings, T'Challa assumes the Black Panther mantel to join with girlfriend Nakia, the queen-mother, his princess-kid sister, members of the Dora Milaje (the Wakandan 'special forces') and an American secret agent, to prevent Wakanda from being dragged into a world war.

The reviews for _Black Panther_ are all essentially saying the same thing: This is a great movie because it's so different from anything we've seen before, not just in the MCU but in the superhero genre overall, the villain is fantastic and _Black Panther_ is just a new and totally innovative film. Allow me to disagree (almost) entirely. _Black Panther_ is a great film, not because it breaks the mould, but because Marvel Studios has a successful pattern and _Black Panther_ adheres to it completely. Obviously the importance of a lead who is not just black but actually African is not to be understated, we have the least white cast of any superhero movie to date and they absolutely killed it, all very important socio-political stuff, to be sure. But the bones of _Black Panther_, the plot, the script, the events, the turns, all of that, it's a carbon copy of what's worked 17 times before. It works again, don't get me wrong, _Black Panther_ truly was an experience, both important and fantastic, but to say it re-invented the wheel here, is, to me, an outright lie.

_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Overrated and overhyped. Definitely avoid. Watch on redbox if you must.

This is definitely one of Marvel's best because the story is compelling and the characters are well developed. Black Panther and his friends and family must defend themselves and their homeland of Wakanda from the clutches of Klau (Andy Serkis) and Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan). Not only is the lead actor great as T'Challa/Black Panther, but the supporting cast does a fine job as well, especially the female actors. T'Challa is surrounded by smart, strong women. Marvel seems to break its villain curse with Klau and especially Killmonger. Killmonger is very well developed and even sympathetic at times, despite his villainy. He sort of reminded me of Tom Hiddleston's Loki. The action scenes and special effects are outstanding. Highly recommended if you enjoy comic book movies.

Really good movie. Good story, lots of fun. This is what DC is missing.

It was with some hesitation that I went to see this movie. I was afraid that it would be burdened with too much political and social preaching. Especially knowing how much the movie is praised amongst certain factions in our society today. Sure enough there were indeed some of that nonsense but luckily it was much less than I feared.

I actually found the movie fairly entertaining. It is far from great, certainly very far from the insane hype surrounding it, but pretty okay. It is more or less a standard issue super hero movie on a big budget. Of course this means a fairly mediocre underlying story beefed up with lots of action and special effects.

The story itself is a traditional revenge story with some black power stuff. Nothing to write home about but it works as a vehicle for the action and special effects which is what makes this movie. There are the usual nonsense and plot holes in it of course. Like Shuri claiming that Vibranium (silly name but never mind) is instable at high speeds yet they have no problem making flying ships and other fast moving stuff with it.

The characters are a wee bit disappointing as far as the main characters are concerned. I felt that the main protagonist has little in terms of charisma. Killmonger, the main bad guy, was downright disappointing. To me he looked like the stereotype of a dumb thug and mostly he behaved like one. Bloody hell could they not have found an actor that looked less…well…stupid!

Personally the character I liked best was actually Klaue which was pretty cool, insane but cool. The female warriors, which were both kick-ass and smart, and Shuri is also fairly high up on my approval list.

Special effects! This is of course where this movie shines. Overall I think the special effects were good. The design of the various gadgets, ships etc were very nice. The rampaging rhinos in the final fight really made me laugh. I should have seen that coming. I definitely liked all the sonic effects. Obviously this movie would have been more or less null if the special effects would not have been a success.

On the whole Black Panther is a quite enjoyable special effects and action movie. Nothing more, nothing less. Some social preaching nonsense but less than I feared, hum ho story, lots of action and lots of special effects.

Download Exodus: Gods and Kings EN DIRECT

Download Exodus: Gods and Kings FULL HD 1080p

The defiant leader Moses rises up against the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses, setting 400,000 slaves on a monumental journey of escape from Egypt and its terrifying cycle of deadly plagues.

This is a well known story and I have also seen the '56 movie 'The Ten Commandments'. So in this film could not foresee the modification, but it did in a slight manner like the later 'Noah' movie. The best part was the visuals, the graphics were so good, hard to resist the pleasure if you are vfx geek like me. That's the reason I love modern movie, especially remake of a classic like 'King Kong'. The problem in this flick was lie in the story telling.

As we know, Ridley Scott is an excellent narrator, but this movie was too short even though it ran 150 minutes. I felt it was just a brief, I mean there were no details or depth in the important scenes. You will know what I'm saying if you had watched '56 movie I mentioned in a above paragraph. That's drawback for the first timers at a same time advantage for not to fall in boredom for those who have already seen other versions. Christian Bale, awesome; Joel Edgerton, good; Ben Kingsley, never required; Aaron Paul, totally waste.

Overall, not cleverly stablised in the scenes that are very important, especially the final one about ten commandments should have been extended a little bit with a moral message. If it was a Peter Jackson movie, definitely it would have been a trilogy with an aggregated time of over 500 minutes. This movie was an entertainer like I enjoyed it than the message deliverer. Must be watched for the amusement and for the pleasure in updating technical aspect of the narration rather than inspiration.

7.5/10

This movie was rather disappointing as far as I am concerned. The original story has been rewritten rather drastically. This in itself do not bother me too much. I am not one of those fanatics that get a fart stuck the wrong way if someone messes with the holy bible. However, I really do not think this was a good rewrite. A lot of the magical moments had been removed and that took away a lot from the story.

The movie starts off good enough with some nice and fairly impressive battles. Then it slows down a lot and sometimes I got a “get on with it damn it” feeling. When we finally got around to the burning bush part I got rather underwhelmed. God as a vengeful kid? Come on!

The disasters and the special effects are not too shabby but the entire bit where Moses confronted Ramses and warned him about the disasters that where to befall Egypt are taken out. They where just thrown on Egypt one after another in ways that could be explained away as natural disasters. From one point of view I can understand the wish to do this but to me it took something away from the movie.

Later when Ramses decides to go after the Hebrews it continues in the same way with Ridley Scott downplaying the magic in the story. There is no pillar of fire and Moses is not holding out his staff to split the see. The sea just decided to recede and Moses takes advantage of it. Sure the effects when the water returns where quite cool but again, the magic was gone.

Technically the movie is quite well done and the acting is quite okay but the biblical grandeur and mythical aspects are no longer there. This grand adventure story is simply reduced to an ordinary, fairly mediocre adventure movie with a high budget. I have to say that I enjoyed Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments more even though the special effects in that one is hopelessly outdated and the acting is a bit awkward.

Download Knives Out EN DIRECT

Download Knives Out FULL HD 1080p

When renowned crime novelist Harlan Thrombey is found dead at his estate just after his 85th birthday, the inquisitive and debonair Detective Benoit Blanc is mysteriously enlisted to investigate. From Harlan's dysfunctional family to his devoted staff, Blanc sifts through a web of red herrings and self-serving lies to uncover the truth behind Harlan's untimely death.

This is a crime thriller that’s been a long time in the making. Mystery fans rejoice: ‘Knives Out’ is an impeccable cinematic achievement, laced with sardonic wit, division and conflict, and of course a perplexing puzzle. This is easily one of the most fun films of 2019 - it’s both a brilliant piece of entertainment and beautifully crafted enigma. Sit back, relax, and try to crack the code.
- Charlie David Page

Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-knives-out-a-whodunnit-worthy-of-agatha-christies-hercule-poirot

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

Knives Out has been shown in numerous festivals, and it received massive acclaim in literally every single one of them. Therefore, its hype grew more and more until its wide release date. Before the film, I can’t deny that I was indeed affected by the whole “a whodunnit like you haven’t seen in years.” I went into the theater with high expectations, not only due to the festival praise but due to its jaw-dropping cast. It’s uncommon to possess such a renowned ensemble and deliver a “bad” movie, especially when Rian Johnson is writing and directing it (yes, I like The Last Jedi, and even if I didn’t, he did other stuff, you know?). It’s one of those films everyone knows it’s going to be appreciated by a considerable part of the world.

Even the genre itself is a very welcome type of cinema entertainment in regards to both critics and the general public. So, does it live up to its hype, or it fails to reach such high expectations? Knives Out is one of the best movies of the year, as well as one of the best mystery-suspense stories of the millennium (everyone is doing the whole “best X of the decade,” I’m going one step beyond). This is a film I know I’m going to rewatch countless times throughout the next years. Usually, when it comes to whodunnits, people are misled into thinking that from the moment they know who “did it,” the movie loses its interest. This is rarely true, and Rian Johnson succeeds because he doesn’t need the ultimate reveal to deliver a great story.

This screenplay is definitely getting tons of nominations and wins during the awards season. Every little line of dialogue means something. Every single character says or does something impactful to the narrative (except for Jaeden Martell’s). It’s been half-a-day since I’ve seen it, and for every question that my brain comes up with, there’s an answer lying on someone’s words or actions. It’s such an intricate, complex, extremely subtle script. One with so many tiny, little details that it’s impossible to catch them all on a first viewing.

I genuinely love the first act, even if it’s the one where I have a minor issue. Rian Johnson doesn’t waste time and puts us directly in the crime scene, interviewing each and every member of the family. It’s through these interrogatories that he cleverly introduces the suspects, developing them solely through masterfully written dialogue, and outstanding performances. For example, with a single sentence and a particular body/face expression, Toni Collette instantly creates a profile of Joni, her character. Rian plays with character-types and cliches in such an intelligent manner. He makes us think a particular character follows a specific cliche, then it doesn’t, then it does again…

That’s one of the reasons I couldn’t figure out the mystery until the last act reveal. Every time I was close to indeed follow the right path, new developments arise, meant to mislead, confuse, and create doubts. Some people feel better with themselves if they solve the case before the film. They feel “intellectually superior” just because they found out before everyone else. First of all, I prefer being fooled and end up blown away by an unexpected conclusion than solving the whole thing way before time’s up and end up disappointed and bored. Then, honestly, anyone who says, “I guessed it,” there’s a 99% chance that they’re either lying or not answering correctly to the question “who killed Harlan?” If you’ve seen the movie, you’ll understand what I’m trying to express.

(I don’t want to sound presumptuous or hypocritical. I’m not trying to say, “I couldn’t figure it out, so no one can.” Please, if you haven’t seen the film, judge the previous paragraph after your viewing.)

Throughout the second and third acts, loose ends start to tie up, ending up with a brilliantly delivered reveal. From the marvelous cinematography (with those classic close-ups when a character is about to say something meaningful or tell a story through their imagination or memory) to the remarkable editing, the team behind Rian Johnson did a phenomenal job. The suspense is held at high levels, and it reaches limit-breaking points with Marta Cabrera’s (Ana de Armas) narrative. Armas and Daniel Craig deliver the standout performances, with Chris Evans (Ransom) following right behind. Literally, everyone else offers excellent displays, and help carry a story filled with mystery, but also with a lot of humor.

However, I have to emphasize how astonishing Ana de Armas and Daniel Craig are. Ana might be a bit unknown to most people. I’ve been supporting her ever since Blade Runner 2049, so I’m ecstatic that she finally got a major role in a big movie, especially within an ensemble of actors with legendary careers. Craig, who could have just delivered a slight variation of the character he’s been playing for years, instead offers a unique take on the Detective role. Just like Evans, both have been playing iconic characters for years, so it’s sort of an extra joke to everyone who watched Captain America and James Bond for the past decade or so.

My only minor issue has nothing to do with the political undertone and the social messages Rian Johnson puts in this film. Honestly, I love that aspect of it. It’s like Rian knew some people would complain about it, so he made sure to have a couple of characters (Jaeden Martell’s Jacob and Katherine Langford’s Meg) somewhat resembling the so-called snowflakes and all that. No, my issue is related to some excessive exposition regarding the first act’s interrogatories. It’s great that every character gets their own motivations, but it feels like each confrontation with the detectives went on for a bit too long. Some pieces of the mystery might be a bit hard to believe that they would occur, but these are all nitpicks in a remarkable movie.

In the end, Rian Johnson is able to bounce back from the divisive The Last Jedi with one of the best whodunnits I’ve ever seen, Knives Out. Rian proves that not only he’s a talented filmmaker but also a phenomenal screenwriter. With a renowned and impressive ensemble cast, Daniel Craig and Ana de Armas are standouts within all of the other outstanding performances, Chris Evans being right behind. With one of the best screenplays of the year, the mystery at its center keeps everyone extremely captivated until the very end, even if you guess “who did it” beforehand. Masterfully written dialogue, remarkable editing, and great use of classic cinematography techniques. It’s an entertaining story with tremendous replay value and significant political/social layers that only elevate the already complex yet subtle narrative. Don’t miss it!

Rating: A

I did not think that _Last Jedi_ was a very good movie, but I have always been a fan of Rian Johnson. And honestly? _Knives Out_ is a strong contender for his best work yet. I have never seen a whodunnit like this before. Seeing this in a theatre was the poppy-poppy-paper of movie-going experiences, because I so enjoyed that.

_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

“This case is like a donut
with a hole
in the middle of a donut hole.
Actually,
it's a donut within a donut's hole.”

‘Knives Out’ subverted my expectations...in a good way. A smartly written whodunit movie that manages to be both humorous and classy. The kind of murder mystery that never fails to entertain. Pleasing both cinephiles and mainstream audiences. Perfectly balance, as all things should be. It basically pulls a Hitchcock on us.

Rian Johnson is a great director, but at times has silly ideas. On the other hand, when given the right material I think he’s a great director and writer. He’s also a clever man, but never came off as annoying. The dialogue was so sharply written that I could tell the cast loved every minute of soaking up and delivering these lines. The cinematography was nothing short but beautiful and will often linger in rooms of the house which helps the audience immerse in the overall setting.

One of the tightest scripts of the year with raw humor and a satisfying mystery/comedy.

The cast is stellar, but the main stand outs for me were Daniel Craig, Ana de Armas, and Chris Evans. I loved Daniel Craig’s Southern drawl which I didn’t expect at first, but I was amazed of how far he went for it. Often times it reminded me of Frank Underwood from ‘House of Cards’. He plays detective Benoit Blanc, AKA CSI: KFC. At one point during the movie he delivers one of the funniest monologues in the entire movie, which was brilliantly delivered by Craig. He should seriously try out more comedy roles.

Dose anyone remember when Ana de Armas starred in Eli Roth’s ‘Knock Knock’? Well look at her now. She was absolutely excellent in this movie. The running joke throughout the entire movie is her character can’t lie and whenever she dose, she vomits on the spot. How ironic, yet I love the comedic irony behind it.

Chris Evans plays a spoiled child with a slimy grin during the worst situations. The over privilege black sheep of the family. This is very against type for Evans, especially when his character hates dogs, which I would imagine being difficult for Evans since he’s a dog lover in real life. Also the different sweaters he wears in every scenes was impeccable.

The rest of the cast manage to shine individually in this crowded movie. Although at times some of them felt like background wall paper compared to others. However that never takes away from what else ‘Knives Out’ has to offer.

Toni Collette dose a great impression of Gwyneth Paltrow. Michael Shannon plays a wimpy son to a crime-writer Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer). Despite the small screen time, Plummer is still charming as always. While Jamie Lee Curtis and her character brings the dramatic elements into play. She’s uninterested in the humorous quarrel during the grim situation, as early on she reminds everyone that her father just died.

Judging it as a whodunit mystery, the pay off itself is slick. The events leading to the death are revealed early into the movie, and instead Johnson remains steps ahead from the audience. There’s an underlining social commentary beneath the foul play. The themes of privilege and underprivileged with the sour taste of bitterness throughout. Nothing deep or new, but at least is trying to say something rather than being one thing.

Overall rating: My House. My Rules. My Coffee!!!

Watch Saving Private Ryan EN DIRECT

Download Saving Private Ryan FULL HD 1080p

As U.S. troops storm the beaches of Normandy, three brothers lie dead on the battlefield, with a fourth trapped behind enemy lines. Ranger captain John Miller and seven men are tasked with penetrating German-held territory and bringing the boy home.

Great WWII war action in France, but too much of the drama is weak

RELEASED IN 1998 and directed by Steven Spielberg, "Saving Private Ryan" (SPR) is about the Normandy invasion and its immediate aftermath from June 6-16, 1944. The focus is on a Captain (Tom Hanks) and his men who are commissioned to find a paratrooper (Matt Damon) whose brothers have been killed in action.

No one's supposed to say anything bad about SPR. To do so is considered sacrilege, but I have to be honest about what I like and don't like about Spielberg's popular WWII war flick. The initial beach landing (shot at Curracloe Beach, Ballinesker, Ireland) is outstanding, as is the closing half-hour battle at the crumbling village of Ramelle.

In between these two great bookends are a few quality sequences, but I didn't find a lot of the drama all that engaging or convincing. The cast is notable (also including Tom Sizemore, Barry Pepper, Edward Burns, Giovanni Ribisi, Jeremy Davies, Vin Diesel, et al.), but the characters never struck me as real for the most part. I've seen the film three times and each time I was too often conscious of the fact that I was watching actors portraying WWII characters in a movie. When you see a truly great picture, by contrast, you completely forget you're watching a movie, e.g. the original "Apocalypse Now" (1979).

Moreover, too many of the situations in SPR, including the dialogue, simply struck me as unreal or annoyingly treacly. Exhibit A is the moronic dog-tag sequence, which was supposed to be emotionally stirring but just made me roll my eyes. But, like I said, no one can criticize SPR and get away with it, even if the criticism is legitimate. It's like you'll be accused of being un-American or something, which is far from the case with me since I love America; I just can't stand the corrupt government & politicians, particularly the loony DemonKKKraps.

In light of my criticisms, I simply don't get why so many praise SPR as "the greatest war movie ever made." Again, the opening and ending battle sequences are great but the dubious dramatics leave quite a bit to be desired.

I've heard SPR hailed on the grounds that much of it was taken "verbatim from first-hand, eye-witness accounts of the real Normandy invasion." I'll take their word for it, but this isn't what I object to. I object to the contrived, sappy, questionable way Spielberg depicted the dramatics and the fact that I was unable to buy the characters as real. The aforementioned dog-tag sequence is just one example, others include the French father’s stupefying actions and the forced fight at the radar station and how it’s resolved (ooh, the Captain’s a high school teacher, whoopee).

Nevertheless, there IS a lot of good in SPR that makes it worth viewing. You can’t beat the battle sequences, the cast and the convincing WWII visuals throughout.

THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hours, 49 minutes and was shot in Ireland, England and France. WRITER: Robert Rodat.

GRADE: C+/B-

This movie should be known for changing Historical War Dramas as we know them. It was the first to accurately depict the carnage of war, and changed the direction of this genre of movies for all time. The initial D-Day scene was fantastic. Afterwards, Tom Hanks is ordered to chose a team of his men and look for James MacGuffin Ryan from Iowa. In order to achieve this goal, Hanks takes us across the entire back drop of world war 2, all the while making us ask, is all this worth just one man?

Honestly it's a must watch and is on my "Difinitive Movie List"

I watched this movie during a project at school. Saving Private Ryan was a beautiful and, above all, realistic film. The film presented in a realistic way how the war went then. Most of the film was set in Europe in 1944. The story is that American soldiers are being sent to Europe to fight against the Germans. The American boy James Francis Ryan is sent to Europe with his brothers as a soldier. After the invasion of Normandy it appears that all his other brothers have already died and he is the only one left. That is why corporal Miller is instructed to look for him and return him home.
The main actors who play in the film are Tom Hanks who plays corporal Miller and Matt Damon who plays the soldier Ryan. You also have all the soldiers in the group of corporal Miller. I think the characters in the film are very well thought out because they contain characters that are very brave, but also characters who have a hard time in the war. With this they show that not every soldier was as heroic as everyone thought.
The film was made on a set that I thought looked very realistic. In the background you saw the buildings that were about to collapse and the shots. I also really liked the sound that came with the film. For example, when a tank arrived, you heard that it was slowly approaching.

Recensie saving private Ryan

Information about the movie
Title: Saving Private Ryan
Regisseur: Steven Spielberg
Most important actors: Tom Hanks as Captain Miller en Matt Damon as Private Ryan
Genre: War, Drama and history
Setting: Normandy, France
Plot: During WWII, Chief of Staff, General Marshall is informed that three of a woman's sons have been killed and that she's going to receive the notifications of their demise at the same time. And when he learns that a fourth son is still unaccounted for, the General decides to send a unit to find him and bring him back, despite being told that it's highly unlikely that he is still alive and the area that he was known to be at is very dangerous. So, the unit consisting of 8 men are sent to find him but as stated it's very dangerous and one by one, they are picked off. Will they find him and how many of them will still be alive?

I saw this movie at school. I think it's a good film because, the director is very good because it seemed like you were really in it because the camera moved with it. In the quiet parts, the image was also quiet and when it became chaotic, the image was also chaotic. The characters were very realistic and felt as if they were really in a war, and for the costumes it looked very real and the same for the decor it looked like you were in war in France. I liked the movie but thought it was a bit too long, so I give it a 9/10.

Download Dark Phoenix EN DIRECT

Download Dark Phoenix EN DIRECT

The X-Men face their most formidable and powerful foe when one of their own, Jean Grey, starts to spiral out of control. During a rescue mission in outer space, Jean is nearly killed when she's hit by a mysterious cosmic force. Once she returns home, this force not only makes her infinitely more powerful, but far more unstable. The X-Men must now band together to save her soul and battle aliens that want to use Grey's new abilities to rule the galaxy.

It’s just a shame that 'X-Men' was never able to live up to its potential in this form. Drawn of clichés, a tired script and a tired cast, it’s a big wet flop of a film where it looked like the cast were just there to collect their cheques. It’s probably something to wait for a digital release and watch on a rainy Sunday afternoon where you can fall asleep during the exhausting middle section and wake up at the mildly less-exhausting end.

If anyone needs me, I’ll be looking for Cyclops, hot choccie, blanket and hug.
- Brent Davidson

Read Brent's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-x-men-dark-phoenix-untapped-potential

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

Honestly, I'm going straight to the point, and I'm going to try not to waste anyone's time since that's precisely what Dark Phoenix did. Clearly, no one in the production team cared about this movie. Now, after watching the film, it's pretty easy to understand the reasons behind the constant delays, and the poor marketing campaign (I barely saw anything remotely publicizing this movie). It's not a complete disaster, it's not an absolute mess, but the third act is such a stab into the fans' hearts. Literally, one of the most abrupt endings of the last few years. It really feels like a producer entered the writers' room and said something along the lines of "let's just hurry this up, Marvel Cinematic Universe is right around the corner, nothing of what we do here matters."

I'm not going to lie, it's actually true. No matter how amazing or horrible this film ended up to be, it wouldn't really matter, which is probably the most negative aspect of this Disney-Fox merger. Days Of Future Past is arguably one of the better X-Men installments, but Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix feel such a waste of time because they never really explore what the time-travel event really changed, and now time's up, a complete reboot is coming. The first act of this movie is genuinely remarkable. I felt invested in both the story and characters, I was deeply captivated by what they were doing, and Hans Zimmer's score elevates a specific sequence that on IMAX really shows off both the visual and audio's phenomenal quality.

Until midway through, it's a pretty well-written, well-performed, and exciting film (with occasional minor issues). However, after a risky yet convincing plot point, Simon Kinberg annihilates everything he was working on until then. From this moment on, I can feel the famous merger being signed, and everyone working on this movie just giving up. The writing becomes atrocious, one of the most forgettable and nonsensical villains ever shows up (and I thought that comic-book adaptations were working past the cliche "bad guys"), characters like Quiksilver are barely in the film (why set up his relationship with his father if they never approach that subplot again?), and the ending lasts around three minutes. Three. In this amount of time, they do the equivalent of the last hour of Avengers: Endgame. Now, try to imagine that epic hour of climactic battles crushed into a couple of minutes...

The cast truly tries. Sophie Turner carries this movie with such an emotionally powerful performance that I almost feel that she alone deserved a positive review. James McAvoy (Professor Charles Xavier) continues his streak of gripping displays (if he doesn't get a freaking Oscar in the next years, I'll explode), Michael Fassbender is splendid as Magneto, and Jennifer Lawrence (Mystique) doesn't do much. Nicholas Hoult (Beast) is a pleasant surprise, but Jessica Chastain (Smith) is the only one at fault here. I never felt any interest from the actress in getting into a superhero film, and honestly, it shows. She's definitely the one that couldn't care less about what comes out of this, so she just offers a one-dimensional performance for a pretty lousy villain.

The screenplay is filled with characters making uncharacteristic decisions (they feel unearned), and exposition scenes that don't really do justice to the compelling backstories. Nevertheless, I always feel the need to come back to the ending. I rather have a slow start, but a strong finish than the other way around. Dark Phoenix delivers a fast-paced, entertaining, and captivating first act, but slowly starts to degrade until it culminates with one of the saga's worst third acts. Sure, the action is great, and it's quite well-filmed actually, but it all ends so quickly that you don't have enough time even to try to enjoy it. If it wasn't for Hans Zimmer's score, which completely nailed me to the screen, my brain would have shut itself down before the wrap-up.

It's a shame that such a beloved franchise like the X-Men has to end like this. Simon Kinberg, knowing that the merger was going to happen, should have changed the last half, and risk a lot more, to be honest. If the movie really didn't matter, then they should have tried to do something that was never done before, and go all-out. If it fails, it fails, but at least it would have been remembered as a courageous and powerful film. This way, not only it's a disappointing culmination to a 20-year saga, but it's forgettable. It's not even horrible enough for people to remember how bad it was, it's just ... Meh. If they didn't care, how can they ask the audience to do it for them?

All in all, Dark Phoenix ends up being what everyone feared it would be: a movie that didn't matter, at all. One that didn't even try to pay homage to an extraordinary saga that notably influenced the comic-book genre. The worst of all is that everyone can imagine how great it could have been since the cast is perfect (Sophie Turner shines), Hans Zimmer's score is sumptuous, and the action is riveting. The worst feeling that a fan can have is that disappointment with how the film turned out to be mixed with the frustration due to how well a fan can imagine how amazing it could have been. However, a flawed narrative with a terrible villain and questionable character decisions ruins those dreams. With one of the most abrupt endings of the last years, X-Men reaches its end as an isolated franchise, and it now rests its hopes on Kevin Feige and Marvel co. that the MCU will do the mutants justice.

PS: as you know, I try to avoid trailers as much as I can. After watching Dark Phoenix's ones, I can only advise you to not watch a single one. Not even the first one. Especially that first one! I can't understand how someone approves trailers so spoilery as these ones. Unbelievable.

Rating: C

I don't think this was the disaster that the critics make it out to be, but it is one of the lesser Fox X-Men movies. Both the opening scene where the X-Men rescue astronauts stranded in space and the ending where Magneto and the X-Men fight aliens on a train were well done action scenes. It's the middle that sags a bit. The film lacks energy and emotional impact. Simon Kinberg wrote and directed this second go around of the Phoenix Saga as a way to atone for writing the mediocre The Last Stand. But this film does not really improve on that film at all. I am eager to see Kevin Feige cover the full Phoenix Saga properly in a trilogy. You cannot cram the Phoenix story into one movie. We've barely gotten to know these young versions of these characters from Apocalypse. The worst performance is from Jennifer Lawrence, whose Raven is completely smug and obnoxious towards Prof. X. I was happy when she exited the movie. You can tell she doesn't care about this franchise at all. Beast acts completely out of character and joins Magneto to kill Jean--something he would never do. Quicksilver exits the movie quickly after being injured by Jean and only returns at the very end. His relationship with his father, Magneto, is never addressed. Scott Summers takes orders from Mystique (ugh!) and never shows any leadership abilities. The villains are generic evil aliens who want to use the Phoenix Force to take over the world. They are just bargain basement Skrulls. Then there are the usual continuity errors with other X-Men movies. Apocalypse showed that Phoenix was a part of Jean, just like The Last Stand did. Now we are told that the Phoenix lives outside of Jean and comes from outer space. Also, when you see how things end for Prof. X and Jean in this movie, it's unlikely that either of them would appear at the end of Days of Future Past to greet Logan at the school. Overall, disappointing and the perfect time for Disney to reboot this property.

It's a really good movie with superb graphics and storyline.

***A fuller rendition of the Jean Grey Plot of “X-Men 3” with Sophie Turner***

This is another take on the Jean Grey story of “X-Men: The Last Stand” (2006). That movie was good up until the last act with the conventional battle between the good and bad mutants at Alcatraz Island, which diverged from the more interesting core story concerning Jean. “Dark Phoenix” (2019) has a similar problem in that Jean’s inner conflict between good and evil is the most interesting element, along with the other mutants being troubled by her transformation and trying to figure out how to handle it.

Unfortunately, as with “X-Men 3,” the filmmakers insist on having everything come down to a big battle sequence that’s overlong and predictable, although it’s better and more moving here. A good example of predictableness is when Magneto (Michael Fassbender) utilizes many rifles to shoot Vuk (Jessica Chastain); you know very well that the bullets are going to be totally useless. The ending’s not bad, just tedious and perfunctory, similar to the big battle sequence in “Avengers: Endgame,” albeit less dull. The original climax of “Dark Phoenix” took place in space and had too many similarities to “Captain Marvel,” which beat “Dark Phoenix” to the theaters. So the creators had to reshoot the ending as a battle sequence involving a train, but it didn’t feel tacked on or inorganic, although the Juk/aliens subplot did.

I prefer Sophie Turner to Famke Janssen in the titular role. She’s just an all-around pleasure to behold, although acting-wise she’s not yet up to the caliber of Fassbender, James McAvoy (Xavier) or Jennifer Lawrence (Raven), not even close. In any case, I found the Phoenix story fascinating just as I did with “The Last Stand,” but here it’s more fleshed out, which makes it better in some ways. I just wish the creators would have the gonads to do something fresh rather than strap the conventional “big battle” ending on what could have been a great movie.

If you liked “First Class” (2011), “Days of Future Past” (2014) and “Apocalypse” (2016), “Dark Phoenix” is cut from the same cloth in all-around quality. I prefer “Days” and “Apocalypse,” but “Dark Phoenix” ain’t no slouch, despite what detractors might say; and it’s superior to “First Class.”

The film runs 1 hour, 53 minutes.

GRADE: B+

Watch Conan the Barbarian FULL HD 1080p

Download Conan the Barbarian FULL HD 1080p

A quest that begins as a personal vendetta for the fierce Cimmerian warrior soon turns into an epic battle against hulking rivals, horrific monsters, and impossible odds, as Conan (Jason Momoa) realizes he is the only hope of saving the great nations of Hyboria from an encroaching reign of supernatural evil.

Everytime I hear the term "remake" I cringe a little... More often than not, the so-called "remake" does not do the original movie justice. With that being said however, I was blown away by this revisited title. Although I was not familiar with the actor cast to play Conan, I was quite pleased by his rendition of the role. Excellent action and plenty of adventure, and not too bad in the looks department either! A most enjoyable movie, that I am pleased to have in my collection.

There's some cathartically pleasant violence, particularly in the first half, but ultimately this movie didn't have to be made, and it *definitely* didn't have to be made under the name "_Conan_".

_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

I quite liked this film, more than I liked Captain America: The First Avenger that we watched a couple of days ago. It has gotten some rather disappointing ratings. I obviously disagree.

I found the film to be pretty much what I hoped for. I read some reviews on IMDb stating that Conan only said about 40 words, that he wasn’t “barbaric” enough, that the fight scenes where chopped up and that you didn’t get to see much of the fighting.

In reality the first statement is a blatant lie and the others simply not true. The film is much bloodier than Schwarzenegger’s version and sometimes in a quite “barbaric” way. I do not know what people really expected from this film but for me it was pretty much what I hoped for. Although the Schwarzenegger films are somewhat out-dated I was still afraid that I would miss good old Schwarzy but I really didn’t (that much at least).

Special effects where quite okay and the 5.1 DTS Master Audio soundtrack was done well enough. It get’s a 7 out of 10 from me.

Looks great, nice action, but needed more depth

Although the set-up of “Conan the Barbarian” (2011) is the same as the 1982 version (raiders destroy Conan's village in Cimmeria and thus the barbarian seeks revenge) the story is otherwise completely different. The villains here are Khalar Zym and his witchy daughter, Marique, who seek to resurrect Zym's sorcerous wife, but they need to acquire the pure blood necessary for their Acheron magic.

WHAT WORKS:

•Jason Momoa, as Conan, is excellent; far better than Arnie. It's hard to conceive of a better Conan.

•The Bulgarian locations are outstanding.

•The Costuming is more convincing than the '82 version. Conan's apparel, for instance, is more faithful to REH than Arnie's fur loincloth.

•Better acting than the '82 version, excluding James Earl Jones, of course.

•Brutal, thrilling action throughout with convincing swordplay (unlike the contrived ’82 version).

•Corsairs, highlighted by Conan's comrade Artus, effectively played by likable Nonso Anozie.

•Excellent sets/props; it definitely looks like the Hyborian Age.

•Good serious vibe, despite the cartoony, over-the-top last act.

•Rose McGowan as the witchy daughter is ee-vil and creepy.

•Ron Perlman as Conan's father.

•The whole opening sequence.

•I liked how the film stressed the closeness and love of Conan and his father. There's a correlation between true greatness and a close relationship with a strong father-figure and his example of excellence.

•You have to give credit to the filmmakers for effectively illustrating Conan's youthful days and life in a Cimmerian village in general, something Conan's creator never delved into in any detail.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK:

•The film deviates from Robert E. Howard, albeit not as much as the '82 version. Regardless, it certainly adhered to REH's overall pulp vibe. I'd prefer to see one of REH's originals put to film, like "A Witch Shall Be Born" or "Beyond the Black River."

•Stephan Lang as Zym makes a worthy enough villain for Conan, but he comes off too clichéd and cartoony, especially in the final act. James Earl Jones' Thulsa Doom worked better, likely because he was so unique.

•Rachel Nichols' Tamara is solid as the female protagonist, but she doesn't hold a candle to Sandahl Bergman's Valeria.

•The score is serviceable but pales in comparison with Basil Poledouris' score from the '82 version and "Conan The Destroyer" (1984). This score definitely won't be celebrated 30 years later like Basil's. Why didn't they just update Polerdouris' piece?

•There’s too much "Modern Blockbuster Syndrome" that appeals to those with ADHD.

•Especially the over-the-top final act, which is way too comic booky. It's cartoony overkill, pure and simple. But, then again, it did bring to mind REH's "Jewels of Gwahlur," so maybe it's not so far off the mark.

•The biggest flaw was that there wasn't enough depth. The film needed more 'downtime' to contrast the wall-to-wall action, like campfire scenes (which would better indicate distances), more camaraderie on the ship, more development of Conan & Tamara's relationship, etc. Although it had some of this, it wasn't enough. Action sequences naturally hold more weight when the audience cares about the characters. As it is, it's clear that the filmmakers wanted to make an action flick above all else and this weakens the film.

•Along with lack of depth was the lack of epic-ness or moving moments. The '82 film deviated from REH but at least it made up for it with depth and a sense of epic-ness. For instance, when Conan & Subotai make their stand against the riders of doom or Conan's moving victory salute, not to mention the potent love & death/funeral scenes, etc. This 2011 version had glimpses of this, like when Conan is birthed on the battlefield then raised to the sky and when Conan's father expresses his love with his final act, but, again, it needed more.

CONCLUSION: The filmmakers got a lot of things right, like Momoa as Conan and the authentic look/feel of the Hyborian Age. The film's not bad at all and pulsates with energy, but it needed more depth, epic-ness and uniqueness to pull it out of its "blockbuster" mediocrity. It's a case of violence for the sake of violence, which gets dull by the 90-minute mark, plus the last act is just comic booky overload. The focus on wall-to-wall action limits the film's effectiveness. It lacks the confidence to chill and allow the characters to breathe. Still, it's a somewhat worthy Conan movie. It's serious and brutal; and, thankfully, lacks "cute" characters. It’s arguably on par with "Conan the Destroyer" and superior in ways, not to mention leagues better than "Red Sonja" (1985) and "Kull the Conqueror."

The film runs 1 hour, 53 minutes.

GRADE: B-/C+

This is terrible, poorly executed, story makes no sense. Costume design is nice but it's not enough to sanction just under 2 hours of my life. Unless you are a child or an easily impressed adult, Avoid!

Watch The Incredible Hulk EN DIRECT

Download The Incredible Hulk FULL HD 1080p

Scientist Bruce Banner scours the planet for an antidote to the unbridled force of rage within him: the Hulk. But when the military masterminds who dream of exploiting his powers force him back to civilization, he finds himself coming face to face with a new, deadly foe.

**A long form review originally posted in 2011:**

Dubbed as a “re-quel”, _The Incredible Hulk_ was first released in 2008, and now, I’m here to review it in the line of Marvel films I’m getting through a the moment.

I always like to think of films individually, but with the Marvel Cinematic Universe getting so big, that can be rather difficult to do. So though I may comment on films in relation to their sequels, remakes, prequels, spin-offs, parodies and the like, know that my final score out of ten is always based purely on the films merits, or lack thereof.

It’s pretty crazy seeing Edward Norton (_American History X, Fight Club, Red Dragon, Kingdom of Heaven, Pride and Glory, Stone_) as a very scrawny Bruce Banner, considering that he turns into the giant, muscular Hulk. But to me it totally worked. As an interesting side-note, Norton co-wrote the script, which may or may not have contributed to his being ousted as Banner for any future films after the movie was released. Not because the script is particularly awful or anything, but because as a general rule production doesn’t like actors getting all up in "dey grillz" half way through. Although it’s not like Norton’s never done this sort of thing before.

Under-appreciated Tim Roth (_Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Planet of the Apes, Lie to Me, Rob Roy_) is also excellent (as far as I’m concerned) playing the role of Abomination/Emil Blonsky. Interesting side-note, no, he’s not related to Eli Roth, who’s also a friend and actor of Quentin Tarantino and his films.

Ultimately, _The Incredible Hulk_ is a fine film, but it just can’t stand up to the superior writing and character building of Thor, Iron Man or Iron Man 2. Liv Tyler (_The Strangers, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Armageddon_) is rather a non-event as supposed love interest Betty Ross. And William Hurt (_Robin Hood, A History of Violence, The Village, A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, Dark City_) as semi-antagonist General Thunderbolt Ross, is nothing but annoying (although it is pretty cool to see just how much they got him looking like the comic book character he is based on.

You would’ve thought that having a modern day Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story to run with, backing from the success of the franchise you’ve got supporting you, that it would be easy to write strong characters, unfortunately, it’s not the case. And while the action sequences are cool, and the fighting is possibly some of the best that Marvel’s come up with, it’s not enough to bring this film up to the standards of the other 3. The film lacks the flair I’m sure everyone would be expecting, and while it’s a perfectly good monster-movie movie, perhaps a completely separate Super Hero origin story would have been better than the overly-CGI-ridden quasi-sequel to 2003’s _The Hulk_ that we ended up with.

66%

_-Gimly_

It's an improvement on the Ang Lee film only in the sense that the smashy smashy bits are more entertaining than the previous film's thinky thinky bits. But the fact that the entire film is just one long extended fight scene is disappointing to us who enjoy the darker, more emotional beats of the Hulk's story. I enjoy this movie quite a bit as a well put together piece of fluff entertainment, but I hold no delusions that even Marvel Studios couldn't get the definitive version of Hulk on screen.

Download Spectre EN DIRECT

Watch Spectre EN DIRECT

A cryptic message from Bond’s past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organization. While M battles political forces to keep the secret service alive, Bond peels back the layers of deceit to reveal the terrible truth behind SPECTRE.

In hindsight my excitement for Spectre seems a bit foolish. After Skyfall, director Sam Mendes openly stated that he wouldn’t direct another Bond movie. And even so, Skyfall wasn’t the best of the new Bond films by any measure – dragging on for much too long. But somehow I got sucked into the hype of Mendes’ vision for an homage to the classic Bond, with that somewhat iconic poster of Craig mimicking Roger Moore, and trailers the emphasized a kind of retro re-visitation of some old villains and themes. But Spectre is none of those things, instead it is a film where everyone involved feels like they are just going through the motions. Spectre tries very hard to be an homage to the vintage James Bond classics, but instead ends up feeling more like a mockery of the series.

For starters the script is outrageously weak and predictable. Bond goes from shootout, to chase, to sex scene, saying and doing the exact same things he has done for the last 23 movies. Instead of a complete story, the film is just a collection of set pieces and scenes loosely stitched together. And while some of them work well on their own, by the second or third fight scene, you won’t be able to stop yourself from yawning. When you aren’t yawning you’ll be laughing, and not in a good way. The dialogue is downright cheesy. Gone is all of Bond’s smooth charm and ability to sting his opponent’s with his tongue just as much as with his gun. Instead at one point, he throws a watch bomb and says: “Time flies!”

Bond is one a secret mission, assigned to him by M (Judi Dench) via a video message delivered after her death. The film doesn’t ever attempt to invest the audience in this mission, or in Bond’s motivation for seeking out Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz) – which apparently has something to do with his foster-father and his childhood, again – but it never seems important to the story or to James. Meanwhile, a new joint secretary, Max or C as he is known (Andrew Scott), is attempting to unite the world’s intelligence under one surveillance network – and through doing so making the Double-0 program obsolete. Lucky for him, Sam Mendes is already doing that for him.

However, Spectre is a beautiful film. There are about five or six huge set pieces, all of which are wonderfully filmed. And if you are just in the mood the veg out and watch Bond cruise through the streets of Rome in a prototype Aston Martin, than this is the movie for you. But things go on for entirely too long, which would be fine if something of interest were happening. But almost nothing does. Bond gets in a situation and gets out, all while throwing a few pithy, laughable, lines out.

Daniel Craig has never been more disconnected from the character James Bond, than he is in Spectre. I must say first, that I love Craig as an actor and as James Bond – he is my favorite of all the Bonds. But here, he is uncharacteristically not James Bond. A scene for instance where bond throws his gun into the river, is done in such a fancy foppish way that I cringed. It is tough to properly convey how Craig misses the mark in Spectre, but when you see it, you won’t be able to help feeling the same way.

Maybe Sam Mendes and screenwriter John Logan did succeed at creating a perfect homage to the Roger Moore era Bond films? Because in reality, none of those films standout as great movies. From start to finish, Spectre feels like someone filling out a madlibs of Bond scenes, and praying that when they read it back, it makes some sense.

Well, cinema’s most treasured and resilient British spy guy is back as the legendary James Bond makes his twenty-fourth outing on the big screen in the highly anticipated and slickly-made Spectre. Worldwide Agent 007 fans understandably maintain their embedded expectations and vision as to what calculating and cunning mission their suave and sophisticated gun-toting, martini-sipping espionage thrill-seeker will encounter in his latest globe-trotting episode. Whatever Bond enthusiasts have in mind for the future twenty-fifth entry of the “licensed to kill” Lothario they should simply settle for the present stimulating currents that trickle as mind-bending material in the polished and percolating Spectre.

As for the dynamic performer that have served his time with action-oriented cinematic sensibilities through three previous super-charged James Bond installments, the steely-jawed and diligent Daniel Craig is back on the saddle again for his fourth stint as the crafty 007. Naturally both ardent and casual Bond followers can rattle off the filmography of Craig’s on-screen tour of duty as the debonair and daring secret service operative and even rate the previous films as they compare and contrast each edition. Some may give special attention to Craig’s first foray into stepping inside Bond’s explosive shoes for 2006’s Casino Royale that is considered a spectacular introduction for the dramatically trained actor. In 2008’s Quantum of Solace, it was a mixed bag at best as Bond followers for the most part gave this second 007 rendition an ambivalent sign of approval (not too many were thrilled with the awkward movie title either). Thankfully, 2012’s Skyfall bounced back for Craig’s take on the roguish Bond and made for some exceptional brownie points as the cagey spy returning to creative prominence. Now 2015’s Spectre hopes to make some hearty tie-ins to Craig’s past big screen adventures as the stoic jet-setting dynamo ridding the world of masterful riff raff.

In actuality, Spectre is serviceable in that it is an elaborate and excitable reminder of the preceding Bond films where bits of nostalgic elements from yesteryear are sprinkled throughout its presentation. Sure, some wily 007 fanatics may spot a few of the tossed in nods to the aforementioned Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace in particular as the proceedings unfold. For the most part, Spectre acts as a mere bridge to the launching of the upcoming 25th Bond actioner in waiting. To be fair the other Bond films have served as a welcome mat to the next chapter of the late Ian Fleming’s engaging and charismatic man of action so why should not Spectre be any different in this regard? Still, this spy caper has its signature swagger that Bond aficionados relish with familiarity: heart-pumping action sequences, exquisite locales, desirable and devious Bond women, majestic car chases, larger-than-life villains and their loyal henchmen, imaginative gadgets and inventive technology and yes…the indomitable James Bond at your service. Nevertheless. the minor knock on Spectre is that it could have risen to the occasion more than it did as it occasionally feels as if it is going through the mischievous motions. It never resorts to the levels of Bond-ish drudgery in Quantum of Solace so that certainly is a relief in that aspect.

Spectre does incorporate its share of opulence, mystery, suspense, shadowy tension and perilous plight. However, where the standard Bond film-making characteristics are somewhat consistent and captivating (i.e. the breathtaking opening sequence of the Day of the Dead celebration in Mexico City) there is also a questionable consideration for the weak-kneed Bond theme song in Sam Smith’s “Writing’s on the Wall” which seems so inadequately suited for a James Bond signature tune. Even the indifferent observers of the James Bond film franchise for the last five decades can attest to the two most important stamps of a Bond film–its opening scene and surging theme song. Thankfully, Spectre’s grand opening sequence obeys traditional Bond practices but Smith’s doggedly tired-sounding “Writing’s on the Wall” feels as it belongs attached to an old televised After School special from the mid-70s. Wouldn’t you give your kingdom for Paul McCartney and Wings’ “Live and Let Die” or Carly Simon’s “Nobody Does It Better” or perhaps even Sheena Easton’s “For Your Eyes Only”?

One thing that can be said about Craig’s Bond in Spectre and that is his image transformation has been elevated to that of a fashion plate whose GQ stylized look has taken quite a step up. Not since Roger Moore’s Bond has there been a clear case of dazzling attire on display for Agent 007 to strut his stuff in spiffy clothing accessories throughout his ventured travels. Craig, billed as a “blue-collar” Bond whose demeanor is more blunt and workman-like, takes comfort in basking in the finesse shadows of a classic Agent 007 almost foreign to his distinctive spin on the iconic spy. In fact, the overall vibe for Spectre seems to lie in the middle of old school and new school James Bond mythology where the shading suits both camps of the ever-lasting film franchise.

Director Sam Mendes, who handled the direction for the previous Skyfall, finds the right tone and temple for Spectre that certainly shows off its lavish and ambitious production values as the set designs, scenic locations, fabulous pre-credits action sequence are all indescribable in majestic scope. No one can accuse Spectre as to not holding its own in visual functionality. Wisely, Mendes does not forget his Skyfall background players as they reunite with Craig’s Bond and partake in the sensationalized cat-and-mouse caper. It is refreshing to see Ralph Fiennes back as “M” not to mention Ben Wishaw’s “Q” front and center. And a Craig-fronted Bond film would not be the same without Naomie Harris as Miss Moneypenny.

Agent 007 fans will find a common "Bond" with Daniel Craig and his fourth outing as the licensed to kill Lothario in the stunning and kinettic SPECTRE
Agent 007 fans will find a common “Bond” with Daniel Craig and his fourth outing as the licensed to kill Lothario in the stunning and kinetic SPECTRE
It is a given that the diabolical criminal network known as SPECTRE has always had its affiliation with the Bond universe especially in the classic Sean Connery Bond-age years. Instinctively, SPECTRE’s evil heart and soul was pumped continuously by that organization’s dastardly mastermind Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Oscar winner Christoph Waltz does the sordid honors of taking the reins as Bond’s nemesis Franz Oberhauser in Spectre with devilish delight and is more colorfully corrupt thanks to his handy go-to muscular minion Mr. Hinx (ex-professional WWE wrestler and “Guardians of the Galaxy” star Dave Bautista) echoing the memories of beloved brute Jaws (played by the late Richard Kiel) from The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker).

We can never forget that along with Agent 007 folklore comes the responsibility of being labeled a treasured Bond babe. And although the latest sultry women represented in Spectre will never make us forget the iconic likes of Dr. No’s Ursula Andress (Honey Ryder) or Casino Royale’s Eva Green (Vesper Lynd) for that matter they still hold their own and give a measure of titillation to both Bond and the vast amount of male admirers wishing they carried a gun and wore expensive tuxedos while being at the receiving end of a provocative smooch by these vibrant vixens. Lea Seydoux’s Madelene Swann and Italian siren Monica Bellucci’s Lucia are on board as the Bond bombshells for hire.

As a whole, Spectre has its up and down moments and never is quite sure about standing alone as an independent Bond story or being dismissed as a pit stop for 007-related flashbacks and reference bits ode to yesteryear’s glory of the super spy’s engaging and raging exploits. The verdict is that Spectre ultimately satisfies one’s craving for the invincible James Bond whether you can to relive his vintage reputation or look forward to a millennium-enhanced production that will grow with the ageless wonderment pertaining to Fleming’s literary ladies man-turned movie-making mainstay of action-packed cinema for half a century. As one-time Bond songbird Carly Simon would attest in her soothing lyrics, “nobody does it better…” Yet in the dimensional escapist world of James Bond this particular go-around could have been a tad bit better.

Spectre (2015)

Sony Pictures

2 hrs 28 mins.

Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, Dave Bautista, Monica Bellucci, Andrew Scott

Directed by: Sam Mendes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Genre: Spy-Espionage Caper/Action & Adventure/Suspense Thriller

Critic’s rating: ** 1/2 stars (out of 4 stars)

(c) Frank Ochieng (2015)

A "correct" Bond movie. All the expected stereotypes are included, Waltz is an OK bad guy and the intro scene is something really impressive.

Nothing else really new ...

> Not your usual Bond movie, but still a good entertainer.

What I liked from a couple of last Bond movies was they were off the regular 007 style, like not overly rely on spy's special gadgets. This change has been since the day one of Daniel Craig as a famous British spy, James Bond. Anyway, he's the most fittest (muscular) Bond I've ever seen and he's celebrating 10 year anniversary with this film release. But the question is whether he to do another film or done with the franchise. The doubt after the confusing end of this film.

The end was quite clear on the story perspective, so I kind of felt it was a farewell for Craig. But, later I came to know that the official source says Bond25 will be his fifth and so on till he opts out himself. 'Spectre' was a very simple Bond movie I have ever seen, but I can say the production quality was so good that you can't resist the enjoyment. The actors, they were also good, but not as I anticipated. Maybe many scenes were very ordinary for a Bond movie, that's comparable with the nowadays action movies, otherwise it was not as bad as critics expressing their disappointment.

You can't believe what I was disappointed, you know when they say what the C stands for - is that the best word they come up with against the M for Moron? Anyway, James Bond movies have always had ups and downs, the last film 'Skyfall' was a mega hit and now this has not stood up to that standard. But very entertaining with all the actions and unexpected turns in the narration. As a spy movie, it was okay, but as a Bond movie is what might upset you, so its upto you how you look at it. But to be honest, I enjoyed it.

7/10

Download The Lion King FULL HD 1080p

Download The Lion King FULL HD 1080p

Simba idolizes his father, King Mufasa, and takes to heart his own royal destiny. But not everyone in the kingdom celebrates the new cub's arrival. Scar, Mufasa's brother—and former heir to the throne—has plans of his own. The battle for Pride Rock is ravaged with betrayal, tragedy and drama, ultimately resulting in Simba's exile. With help from a curious pair of newfound friends, Simba will have to figure out how to grow up and take back what is rightfully his.

‘The Lion King’ is a catastrophe; a new low in the ever-diminishing returns of Disney’s endless run of remakes. There’s nothing redeeming about it, with every decision either ill-conceived or mishandled to the point of incompetence. In Favreau’s hands, ‘The Lion King’ is rendered thunderously dull, lacking in any tension or complex characterisation, taking a laboriously long time to go nowhere and never once justifying its contentious existence. Even with my dislike of the original, I was flabbergasted at how thoroughly this film never attempts to understand why so many people love the 1994 film. If nothing else, this film makes it abundantly clear that Disney has no interest in making great cinema or honouring its own legacy. They don’t care whether the film is good or whether you enjoy it. All they care about is using nostalgia to trick you into buying your ticket so they can make as much money off you as they can, and maybe if they throw some recognisable iconic moments from your childhood on the screen, they may even be able to fool you into thinking you’d had a good time. ‘The Lion King’ is the ultimate diabolical apex of the commercialisation of nostalgia, and its inevitable box office success will just prove how easily we continue to be duped and how thoroughly they have trained us to not care about the quality of what we see. If this really is the future of mainstream cinema, then we are in serious, serious trouble.
- Daniel Lammin

Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-lion-king-a-catastrophic-and-soulless-remake-of-a-disney-classic

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

I don’t know how I should start, but I guess I’ll address something that people might ask: yes, it’s a SPOILER-FREE review. Why? Well, the story might follow the same essential plot points, and the characters might have similar narrative paths, but there are so many details that make this movie stand on its own. From tiny little improvements to moments of the original that wouldn’t make sense in a realistic environment to adjustments to character’s backstory, musical moments or other significant parts. With that said, I need to discuss the controversy surrounding this remake, but I won’t take longer than one paragraph.

People need to understand that these Disney’s remakes aren’t here to replace the originals. They’re here to honor them, and bring their stories and characters to this new century so that new generations can have an additional look at something they love, and 90s kids can remember why they love these films so much. Emphasis on the “additional” part of that sentence. Then, people also need to get their preferences right: would you want to watch a shot-for-shot remake or something entirely different? Or a blend of these two? If you don’t know what you want, you might be in danger of turning into a hypocrite if your speech goes from “I don’t want these copy-paste remakes” to “they changed that specific moment, why didn’t they keep it the same?” Just be clear on what you wish. If you simply don’t want Disney to do these remakes, then just don’t watch them. Don’t go online try to beat it to the ground with negative comments if you haven’t seen the movie. Moving on …

I love it. I absolutely love it. I cried the exact same 4 times as I did in the 1994’s original. My whole body got chills during the opening sequence, which is one of a few things I love more about the remake than in the original. It’s NOT a shot-for-shot remake! I don’t understand how so many critics are calling it so. Either people’s memory of the original faded or someone clearly didn’t watch the same film. I can write a whole review of 1000+ words just describing the new stuff. Of course, the story goes through the same iconic moments in the same way, and some dialogues are extensively repeated, which was something that I was hoping they developed more. Despite that, I still feel that the scripts have a different take on it from the voice actors, even James Earl Jones.

One proof would be that I cried on a scene that I never felt like it in the original. I don’t know if it was how it was shot (one of the various different angles that the remake provides of known scenes) or if the dialogue just has more impact this time around, but the point here is that this remake is NOT a cheap copy-paste. I always look forward to seeing what they come up with to solve or adjust some questions that the originals leave us with. Let me just write that Jeff Nathanson has some truly brilliant changes/additions. Remember people criticizing Scar’s look when the first teaser came out? With just ONE WORD, its entire physical shape, scar, and past are explained. One word. Imagine that. There are little elements like adding a word or a sentence here and there, and it makes so much more sense with the character or the story in question.

Speaking of Scar, Chiwetel Ejiofor is astonishing. Scar might be my favorite character of the remake. He’s more menacing and scarier, his voice is darker, and his arc is better explored. Jeremy Irons will always have that iconic voice associated with the character, but Ejiofor did a crazily good job in replacing him. However, if there’s one voice that I could never watch another actor do is Mufasa’s. I have no words to express how emotionally powerful James Earl Jones’ voice is. As soon as he says “Simba” in the reflection scene, my eyes drop waterfalls. His voice is an emotional trigger, let’s call it that. I love Timon (Billy Eichner) and Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) even more this time around. Their scenes are hilarious, and the characters’ relationship keeps being a standout. Oh, and if you were worried that the hula scene would never be as good let alone surpassed … You might need to rethink that. Also, I enjoyed the stretched last act (I found the original’s final battle too abrupt), and I would advise parents to be careful showing this remake to (very) young kids since the violence on display feels much more real (duh).

JD McCrary and Shahadi Wright-Joseph (young Nala) are amazing, and their voices are crystal clear while singing. Donald Glover and Beyoncé (adult Nala) are also terrific, and their voices are even better. The new music Spirit fits better in this remake than Speechless in Aladdin. Moving on to the music, it’s another aspect that I genuinely think the remake does better. Hans Zimmer proves that he can bring an old score of his back to life in a much more robust, epic, and passionate way. Every song feels more prominent, every soundtrack feels a lot more impactful and stronger. Be Prepared is the only one that goes through a significant change, and while it might sound a bit strange at first, I love it more each time I listen to it. It’s a score that will never be forgotten, and this remake just helped people remember how great it is. Oscar-winning score.

I left the best to last: the visuals. I can’t possibly describe how impressive and eyegasmic the CGI is. Animals talking was never an issue (people keep sharing GIFs or short clips and immediately started complaining that it looked awkward … a 30-seconds video without context watched on a laptop will never give you a hint of how the movie will actually be). Yes, the expressiveness of the original animation can’t be achieved, but going as far as saying that the film lacks soul or that the characters don’t emote is just inaccurate. You don’t need a PhD to understand that a lion with its ears down or up means different things. There are tiny little movements in the animals that are so complex that I’m still astounded how they were able to do it. If a bug flies near their faces, they flinch or move in such a characteristic way that I felt like I was truly watching real animals. Once again, Oscar-winning VFX.

I don’t really have major problems with it. Minor gripes with a few things, but the biggest one would be the lack of more uniqueness. There’s no element of surprise in regards to the story or the character’s decisions. We always know what’s coming, so we’re prepared (no pun intended) for anything they through at us because, well, we’ve seen it before (with the exception of one particular scene that made me jump out of my chair and I think not a single person will be able to avoid it). I find the “animals don’t emote” argument one of the biggest nitpicks in the history of cinema. It might be true that they lack the emotion of the original animation, but going as far as saying that they show absolutely no emotion is just hating for the sake of hate. Same goes for people criticizing the fact that Can You Feel the Love Tonight is sung during broad daylight … In the original, it isn’t nighttime as well.

Finally, I just want to address the “these remakes aren’t necessary / no one asked for these” discussion. No one asked for the 1994’s movie until it came out. People didn’t know they needed it. Seriously, everyone needs to realize that these remakes aren’t here to replace the originals. How many of you have watched The Lion King (1994) or showed it to someone in the past 10 years? How many times have you heard its score in the same period? I bet that most of the answers are simply “none”. That’s how important this remake is then! It makes you go back, it makes everyone remember how incredible the 1994’s film is, by keeping its essence while being able to stand on its own. Jon Favreau did a tremendous job, and I hope he gets recognized for it.

In the end, it doesn’t matter if the story is identical if we cry all the same. It doesn’t matter if we know what’s coming if we still feel nervous and worried about the characters. The Lion King (2019) is one of Disney’s best remakes so far, on par with The Jungle Book. Its VFX are game-changing, its score is more powerful and emotional than in the original, and the story carries the same heartfelt impact. James Earl Jones’ voice is everything. Timon and Pumbaa are even funnier. Ejiofor’s Scar is the best character in this remake. I have no flaws to point out, except that it follows the exact same path that the original’s story does. I wish it would be more distinct, but I can’t lie to myself, I love it deeply. One of 2019’s best movies. My #1 spot will be hard to decide… Go watch it! I can’t wait to see it again!

Rating: A

_Vulgar Display of Dour_

_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

Watch Unbreakable EN DIRECT

Download Unbreakable FULL HD 1080p

An ordinary man makes an extraordinary discovery when a train accident leaves his fellow passengers dead — and him unscathed. The answer to this mystery could lie with the mysterious Elijah Price, a man who suffers from a disease that renders his bones as fragile as glass.

Soon found out had a heart of glass.

It often gets forgotten just what an exciting talent M. Night Shyamalan was during the early part of his film making career. True that Unbreakable, with its deliberate slow pacing and left-field narrative, would (and has) proved to be not everyone's cup-o-tea, but there's a film making craft here, and a genius idea brought to vivid life, that makes a spectrum of film lovers lament how his career nose dived, how his ideas quickly got as stupid as his acting...

Unbreakable challenges the thought process, spinning a story that's of a adult comic book heart, but also of a clinical human examination. The narrative is consistently ambiguous, holding the patient viewers in enthral as the cosmic conundrums come tumbling off of the screen. It's refreshing to find a story like this that is so devoid of cliché, where the wonderfully reflective Bruce Willis and the brilliantly fascinating Samuel L. Jackson feed off each other, their character's destinies superbly steered by cast and director. Unbreakable is a complex movie, but not needlessly so, its strengths are numerous for those of a keen eye and ear. It represents Shyamalan's most clever cinematic offering, to which the sad realisation comes to pass that he would never, as yet, be this smart and vibrant again. 10/10

Not The Shamhammer's best, but certainly of the era when he was still making "good".

Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

What a movie! This is one of the most underrated films out there, and it was unfairly compared to The Sixth Sense at the time the former was released. These are two very different movies, but both of them have a lot of twists, which was what brought fame to Shyamalan's films, especially The Sixth Sense.

Unbreakable follows that same methodology. It has a lot of twists throughout the runtime, and they are quite diverse: some are very technical twists, related to our point of view of a particular scene that, as it progresses, we always find ourselves tricked (these ones, most people either don't catch them or just don't care ... For me, it's proof of brilliant writing); the others are the prominent plot twists, where something unpredictable happens to the overall story.

This movie has all of that and much more. The story itself is incredibly captivating since the main plot holds a lot of mystery and suspense, but these only work as well as they did thanks to Shyamalan, both director and screenwriter. His very unconventional way of storytelling and the anxiety that he's able to convey to some fantastic scenes, elevate the film while delivering a perfect narrative. It's even more mind-blowing the fact that this movie still makes so much sense and it didn't lose its replay value after 17 years!

In fact, I bet it would be a striking success nowadays, where the superhero genre is over-saturated. Each year, we get more and more movies following the excessively used genre's formula that makes almost every blockbuster an instant box office hit. Unbreakable is nowhere near that formula, and I genuinely think that any fan of comic-book films must watch this one so everyone can understand what a "grounded superhero movie" actually means. M. Night Shyamalan wrote a story that everyone can appreciate, without all of those big CGI fights and overwhelming visual effects. Comic-book fan or not, Unbreakable is the closest to what reality would be if superheroes really existed.

Regarding the cast, Bruce Willis probably has his career-best dramatic performance in this film. He's terrific as David and I can feel all of the emotions which he wants to transmit to the screen. Samuel L. Jackson brilliantly plays Elijah, who has a real-life disease which SLJ portrayed beautifully and respectfully. The supporting cast is also worth praising since both Robin Wright (Audrey Dunn) and Spencer Treat Clark (Joseph Dunn) play magnificent roles as the wife and son of David, respectively.

Everyone helped Shyamalan direct exquisite dialogue sequences that extended for minutes without end. The editing and production of this movie are unbelievable ... and it was filmed in 2000! There are so many long, one-take scenes that explain in just a few minutes, everything you need to know about a character or a specific place or event ... Even a full action sequence is filmed in just one-take (the stunt work is also pretty efficient)! The soundtrack is so important, especially in the last act where everything comes to a conclusion. It's inspirational and even epic, I dare calling it. It's just perfect! Throughout the runtime, you can barely notice it due to how subtle it is. However, when it is needed to deliver a new layer of feelings, it always raises the moment.

As discussed above, this is a M. Night Shyamalan film, so a very powerful twist right at the end needs to happen ... and it does. It gives the audience an unpredictable perspective about the whole story. I risk myself in saying that it isn't exactly necessary, but the truth is that it makes sense and it does bring the movie to a whole other level, so very, very well done! Finally, I just wish that this film had been released now. It is so much different than what we are used to watching and experiencing, that I dare to say it is one of the best movies inside this genre.

Once again, Shyamalan shows the audience why was he becoming one of the most popular directors/screenwriters and proves that his rather unconventional storytelling, unpredictable twists and excellent direction are skills to praise more often. Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson have great chemistry, but the former has his career-best dramatic performance. The editing, production, soundtrack and even the pacing of this film are entirely flawless, as well as the ending twist that leaves us with our jaws dropped. Unbreakable is one of the most underrated superhero movies ever, but it sits way on top as one of my favorites.

Download 300 EN DIRECT

Download 300 EN DIRECT

Based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, "300" is very loosely based the 480 B.C. Battle of Thermopylae, where the King of Sparta led his army against the advancing Persians; the battle is said to have inspired all of Greece to band together against the Persians, and helped usher in the world's first democracy.

300, the 2007 story of the three hundred Spartans who held off a massive Persian offensive in Ancient Greece, proved a disappointing film. In spite of my Classics degree, I won't complain about the divergences from recorded fact. The film is clearly meant to be a fantasy on historical themes instead of a faithful account of the event. Rather, what irked me was the hammy dialogue. There were the tropes of recent Hollywood battle scenes: warriors on the good guys' side defending themselves with little exertion as they trade silly quips about how they've got each other's backs. A queen gives an address to a council that is all melodrama -- are we back in George Lucas' "Star Wars" prequels?

Having enjoyed Sin City, a film with a similar green screen approach, I thought that 300 would be enjoyable on the basis of its special effects, but alas it wasn't. For one, the cinematography is claustrophobic. All outdoor scenes but one were filmed with a green screen, and the digital backdrops add no depth. Even when supposedly standing on the Greek coast under a big sky, everyone seems like they are just standing around in a fairly small room. Also, the fight scenes seem more primitive than considering that this film followed years after The Matrix Reloaded.

The little I can recommend 300 for is the variety of demonic monsters and exotic costumed assassins that fill the Persian army. As I said, this is a fantasy on historical themes, and the additions are often interesting. Still, I had a hard time sitting through the whole film.

Leather underwear and a cape is honestly such a Look™.

_300_ cops a lot of flak for being all style and no substance, and I'm not gonna stand here and lie to you by refuting that. What I will say however, is that style over substance does not inherently make a movie bad. _300_ is a lot of fun, you get what's going on, and there's some genuine rewatch value.

Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time.