**Notting Hill is a charming and pleasant movie with great laughs and a sweet and satisfying story.**
Any film enthusiast or rom-com fan knows that Notting Hill is a classic. This heartwarming tale of a chance romance blossoming between a stunning movie star and an average everyday guy is a sweet, captivating, and hilarious story of what happens when two people from entirely different worlds fall in love. The shock and excitement of Hugh Grant's zany friends throughout the film that he is dating a famous actress makes it feel a little more grounded and real while also highly entertaining. Each character stands out throughout the movie with big personalities and charming humor. Notting Hill is a cozy film that calms and delights with a rewarding conclusion and wonderful endearing characters.

**By: Louisa Moore / www.ScreenZealots.com**
It takes a lot for a film to surprise me, and I love it when one does. “Bullet Train” is chocked full of so much stylish, bloody, violent fun that it reminds me why I love movies in the first place. Director David Leitch brings a confident, creative vision to his Guy Ritchie-meets-Gareth Evans-meets Matthew Vaughn-meets Quentin Tarantino style that’s rambunctious, frenzied, and in your face. While some will detest this sort of mayhem, many fans of the genre will join me in enthusiastically screaming, “shoot this into my veins!“
Unlucky assassin Ladybug (Brad Pitt) is tired of the brutality. He’s back for another job, but has pledged to work peacefully and without a weapon. Ladybug has been tasked with retrieving a silver briefcase from a high-speed train in Japan, which seems simple enough. Fate steps in, naturally, putting a damper on his well-intentioned plans. The train is filled with the most lethal adversaries (and one deadly snake) from around the globe, and they all want the same thing. Chaos ensues in what may be a literal last man standing scenario.
Based on the book by Kôtarô Isaka, the film takes place almost solely onboard a train, but it never feels claustrophobic. Despite tight close-ups and many dialogue-heavy scenes with questionable writing, the cast (including Joey King, Andrew Koji, Michael Shannon, and Hiroyuki Sanada) keeps things engaging. Brian Tyree Henry and Aaron Taylor-Johnson as a pair of professional criminals are particularly entertaining, and Pitt exercises his movie star chops with great aplomb. The storytelling is terrific (one of my favorite bits is the tale of Wolf, which is wonderfully executed), even if everything doesn’t quite come together as well as it could.
This is also a gorgeous looking film. Jonathan Sela‘s colorful cinematography is alluring, with a richness that elevates every scene. Leitch is skilled at directing action scenes that are thrilling, and fights that are well choreographed. Even the CGI is exciting.
The film reaches just the right balance between action, violence, and humor, and it’s one that I cannot wait to revisit. From the killer soundtrack to the rapid-fire visual storytelling, there’s a lot going on at all times. If you’re not paying attention, you’re guaranteed to miss something. I feel this one could benefit from subsequent viewings. Plus, it’s been a long time since I’ve wanted to rush back to re-watch a movie the second it ended.
“Bullet Train” is a film that will prove to be an acquired taste. It’s the type of movie that you’ll either love or loathe, with very few landing somewhere in between. It’s illogical, confrontational, and it’s sometimes evident that the film trying too hard, but I found it easy to overlook the flaws because it’s just so damn entertaining. Talk about a nonstop thrill ride.

I see there are a LOT of reviews of Bullet Train here, so I will be brief. I usually only watch action movies if they contain a large element of humor and, if possible, an actor I like. So I gave Bullet Train a try. I figured Brad Pitt wouldn’t get involved with a totally awful film.
So yes, it was humorous and often entertaining, with the comic book violence action films often seem to include, I guess because the audience demands it. I almost gave up on it halfway through, not because it was boring but just because the story seemed so shallow and the subplots didn’t grab me. But the film’s action moved along fast enough for me to stick with it. Like I said, it is entertaining in places and witty overall, though I can’t imagine ever watching it a second time.

This was a fund movie indeed, and quite woke-free at that. The fact that the woke crap site Rotten Tomatoes has marked it as rotten (despite it having more than 50% positive critics reviews) was a good sign of course.
It is an action/comedy about an unbelievably unlucky (and a bit stupid) assassin played by Brad Pitt. The movie mixes action, comedy, a bit of suspense and a fair amount of gore in a quite enjoyable package.
The movie balances the comedy bits right on the line where it would turn silly and cringe-worthy but there was really only one place where I went “Oh no, what the f…?”.
The action bits are overall quite good but this is Hollywood with their armada of clueless script writers so sometimes they get a bit ridiculous. Like being able to hang on to the outside of a bullet train while it speeds away.
Although fairly unbelievable and over the top, the core story actually makes some sense but then, it was not written by some Hollywood hack but instead based on a novel.
Overall it was a fun movie with a lot of laughs. The end twist with the tangerine truck was absolutely hilarious.

A well-timed, funny, action packed train ride, I was not bored for a single second of this film.

**Bullet Train combines all the action, expertise, and stunt work of John Wick with the pacing, goofiness, and fun of Hot Fuzz.**
High energy, vibrant colors, funny characters, and excellent action fuel Bullet Train to take its audience on a wild and entertaining ride. Each character is larger than life and outrageous, but all fit perfectly in this vivid and comical world. Bullet Train feels like Edgar Wright’s version of John Wick - all the action is there, but so are all the comedy and quirky characters. Brad Pitt’s prowess as an actor shines as his ridiculous peace-loving assassin blunders through the film but never crosses the line into cliche or too much. Brian Tyree Henry’s Lemon is the most entertaining out of a cast of enthusiastic over-the-top characters that will have you laughing from the first second til the credits roll. Funny cameos and great action punctuate this already fun and colorful film. Bullet Train is a fun watch, but some poor visual effects distract from the ending and keep the rating from being higher. Even with its few faults, Bullet Train is a goofy, dynamic, and bright action flick that invents a fun world I wouldn’t mind exploring in future films.

Brad Pitt is "Ladybug" - a now zen-like, semi-retired, hitman brought out of retirement to appropriate a suitcase from a train. Easy enough task, you might think - especially as he obtains it relatively easily. It then transpires, though, that there is much more afoot. Also on the train are the two guys who own the suitcase - "Lemon" (Brian Tyree Henry) and his twin "Tangerine" (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) who have been tasked with rescuing the recently kidnapped son of the legendary "White Death" crime lord and his ransom (in the suitcase). When the pair discover that their loot has gone missing and that their charge has developed a rather nasty habit of bleeding from the eyes, they have to keep their suspicious employer at bay and find their luggage whilst this high-speed train hurtles from Tokyo to Kyoto. Add to the mix the slightly enigmatic "Prince" (Joey King) - outwardly a charming, butter-wouldn't-melt, schoolgirl type, but really a gal who is also up to something with the rather hapless "Kimura" (Andrew Kohi) whose son she had recently pushed from a roof and, well... Yes, the plot is pretty convoluted at the start but with a monologue style narrative well delivered by an on-form Pitt, and an engaging repartee between the 'Thomas the Tank Engine" obsessed "Lemon" and his spiritual brother, this actually makes for quite a decent action adventure. It is way too long - it could comfortably shave twenty minutes from the character establishment phase, but the script is quickly paced and sometimes quite clever and there are plenty of action scenes that are fun to watch and don't take too long. It has shades of "Pulp Fiction" (1994) I thought - multiple characters with entertaining storylines that gradually involve and synergise all the characters. The ending isn't the best, and perhaps one might wonder about the complete lack of security not just on the train but at just about every station between the two cities. Carnage ensues pretty readily but no sign of a blue light. It's fun, throwaway, entertainment that follows on from "The Lost City" in which Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum allow Pitt the supporting role that he allows to both of them - and a tiny but of Ryan Reynolds too, if you are eagle-eyed, here. It's factory fodder, and you won't remember it by Christmas - but it's still nice to see some folks having fun on a big screen with no pretence whatsoever.

Such a blast!
Personally, I wasn't expecting much from 'Bullet Train' at all. The (most overplayed) trailer didn't fill with me with much interest and I thought the bullet train aspect would be gimmicky and perhaps even too limiting. However, to my surprise it's the exact opposite to all that. It's supremely entertaining and very amusing!
I love the whole style of the film, the editing is top notch. the bloody visuals are class and the music is superbly chosen - every track hits. Then you also have an excellent cast. I thought, again based on the trailer(s) that I saw, it would be a run-of-the-mill Brad Pitt feature, but his performance is terrific throughout.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry are a quality double act, I thought their accents and dynamic would get tiresome but if anything I enjoyed them the more I saw them - funny guys! Joey King was the only character I wasn't sold on during the film, though by the end I dug her performance too.
Andrew Koji and Hiroyuki Sanada are also very good, while Michael Shannon, Benito A. Martínez Ocasio (aka Bad Bunny) and Zazie Beetz are welcomed cast members as well. There are also a few other noteworthy people involved, including two that Pitt knows well from a different 2022 flick. Seriously, what a cast!
If I had to mention one gripe, it would be the run time/pacing - this is me nit-picking, though at like one or two (no more than that) moments I did feel like it wasn't paced incredibly. Again, no biggie though. All in all, I most definitely had a great time with this and would certainly recommend it.*
*still, if you want an even greater film set entirely on a train then you gotta check out the outstanding 'Source Code' - one of my favourites!

I first got an extended look at “Bullet Train” during Cinemacon when a reel of the film was shown during the Sony showcase to an enthusiastic crowd. The footage mixed action and humor with quirky and dysfunctional characters and became a must-see film for me based on the teased footage.
The film is based on a book by Kotaro Isaka and stars Brad Pitt as an operative named Ladybug. He is called at the last minute as a replacement and given instructions to board a Bullet Train and snatch a case in one of the passenger areas before exiting at the next station.
Having gone through a recent crisis, Ladybug is awash in various philosophical and new age ideas as he attempts to find his inner peace and a new path in life, as such he does not take a gun with him when he boards despite being instructed to do so by his handler.
The train is filled with various killers and dangerous people who are there to accomplish various goals and most of whom fail frequently in violent and hysterical manners which further complicate their agendas as well as that of the others and often puts them into conflict with one another as the story unfolds.
It would be difficult to go into further detail on the various characters without spoiling some of the reveals and twists along the way but suffice it to say that Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry as Tangerine and Lemon are great and their banter, as well as capers, is a frequent highlight.
There are some surprise cameos in the film which add to the fun and Joey King is as great as perhaps one of the more complicated characters in the film. Pitt is clearly the star but the film allows him as well as his supporting cast plenty of moments to shine and the humor flies fast and frequent as does the action which creates a very engaging and stylistic hybrid of western and Asian cinema.
The film does drag slightly late before leading to the finale but thanks to the great cast and action it comes through in the end.
Director David Leitch has worked on films such as “Deadpool 2”, “Atomic Blonde”, and “John Wick: and you can see that he has a knack for directing action and comedy as this is a very fun and engaging film that has some great action and humor and one that you will not want to miss.
4 stars out of 5.

“Snatch” On A Train
It should not be a coincidence that Bullet Train and the movie Snatch both feature Brad Pitt. This kind of offbeat storytelling appeals to Pitt. I get a flashback of Pitt in “Twelve Monkeys”, embracing the lunacy. One might also see Tarantino in the storytelling as well. Most of the critics get it right though, the execution is a little flat. What works however are the montages of the other assassins and their backstory. The entire production, and I mean every single shot, feels like it is from a graphic novel. Careful attention to glowing backlights from buttons or tv screens or fancy lighting in general makes this bristle with Japanese cityscape. In fact every shot of the Bullet train that goes from Tokyo to Kyoto (which I have taken myself) shows it as (CGI) cityscape. So the slick feel is done by using cutaway shots of the bullet train never leaving the city (believe it our not in reality the train does go through some countryside) as a punch point as some stunning event happens with the plot.
So this is a thriller, and it tries to throw in some whodunnit of who killed who. It also adds tension as our protagonist does not know he is in possible danger while the audience has been clued in. I like the attempt to go against stereotypes with our main characters. That includes the rich adolescent daughter. Dressed innocently, she actually has a cold heart. As for Brad Pitt, he is a little too “this all for fun”, and becomes a little too relaxed in a movie star going through the motions kind of way. Which I guarantee is not what Pitt is actually doing. I think he takes any role seriously and is acting out his character to the fullest. It's just that his character feels a but thin here.
I felt the movie started off on the wrong foot with the banter between Pitt and his handler. As an editor, I would trusted the audience to let Pitt enter the story without the on the nose exposition. I also think that a slightly more serious tone would not make the gratuitous violence feel so comic book. Therein lies the reason this movie exists in the first place, John Wick. Audiences are expecting creative action sequences, and there are many set pieces that take advantage of being stuck on a train. Two other main characters are a lower class set of English assassins, straight from “Snatch”. That movie depicted a good number of lower class criminals in England speaking goofy dialogue and taking part in some Three Stooges style of mishaps. The duo here spend the entire movie bickering, finding their personal problems more interesting than our caper. I felt their schtick was pushed (their names are Tangerine and Lemon), and the expected humour didn't really connect with the audience. Which is too bad, because they are essentially the main characters, probably getting more screen time than Pitt.
The Japan setting worked very well, although I expect that none of the film was actually shot in Japan, except maybe one of the early establishing shots. The stylish production design necessitated lots of embellishments to the slick backgrounds that the real world can't match. That's OK, I appreciated how cool the movie looked as this convoluted world of Japanese but not Japanese criminals go after the Macguffin. That is, although this a Japanese crime movie, many of the key characters are not Japanese.
As for the action scenes, they are serviceable with a mix of weapons and hand to hand fighting. However there is an annoying habit of victims dying and not dying. Those type of one twist too many issues prevent this movie from being a James Bond kind of generic thriller that delivers the goods. I just recently saw “Gray Man”, and took note that although the story had nothing original to say, it stayed to it's core action tenets and didn't try to confuse the audience with any real twists. So even though both of these films are losers for the critics, there still is a level of roller coaster ride mentality that makes a well made action yarn enjoyable. So I enjoyed this more than those recent lazy Fast and Furious films, but found the story too convoluted, even more than “Gray Man”. 6 out of 10.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/bullet-train-spoiler-free-review
"Bullet Train employs David Leitch's maximalist style in a purposefully silly narrative driven by frenetic action and distinct humor.
Although it doesn't stray from the familiar formulas and doesn't leave viewers blown away by never-before-seen action sequences, the execution of all the intended cinematic moments is more than satisfying, resulting in a couple of hours full of entertainment.
The exceptional cast is worth the ticket, and every second with Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry is genuinely hilarious. Brad Pitt shines as well.
Despite visual effects, script, and character development all traveling in economy class, it would be a "crime" not to recommend this trip."
Rating: B

**The Anti-Matrix**
When I saw the poster, I was expecting it to be a cheap Matrix rip-off. I was so wrong; this is the Anti-Matrix. The similarity to the Matrix are only superficial and very intentional and only to mock the Matrix.
This becomes very obvious when we see that rooftop scene actually play out (it ends quite differently than it does in the Matrix). Why would I love a movie that mocks the Matrix? I am not saying the Matrix is a bad movie, but there is a more sinister aspect to it, that the makers of this movie picked up on and this movie is their response.
Because if there is no "reality" and it's all just an illusion created by the "Architect" the imprison us, then human life becomes cheap. Because their lives are all just an illusion anyway and if they die, their souls might even wake up and become free of the Matrix. Or at least that's actually the conclusions some lunatics came to after having watched the Matrix.
So in this movie we are faced with an autocratic system that's actually completely modeled after real life China with a similar view on human life - viewing average, everyday humans as similarly expendable. And to justify their State wide "family planning" they promise the "superfluous" siblings that they imprison a kinda Matrix of their own where they put them into pods similar to the ones we see in the Matrix and where they are then induced into a sleep state in which they dream and have a sort off life of their own, even if only in their heads. So it is a kinda Matrix, except that at the end we of course find out that their Matrix is... well... I don't want to give spoilers. You just have to watch it if you haven't seen it. It's a great movie with some superb acting.

If you were to go through my movie collection, you would find an eclectic mix of films. One of the most prevalent in the mix of genres & sub-genres, I have many that are post apocalyptic/futuristic dystopian world films. Its the kind of film I love exploring, as its a look at not only our possible future, but a look at ourselves now, and where we are heading should we continue down certain paths.
In the tradition of some of the great films like the classics Blade Runner, and Total Recall, to more modern tales like Equilibrium, and Children of Men comes What Happened to Monday.
Set in a future where food resources are drastically low due to overpopulation, a sinister organization responsible for implementing a one-child policy by taking all subsequent sibling to be cryogenically frozen until such a time when resources are enough to cover everyone.
Terrence Settman (Dafoe) finds himself in a rather precarious position with the birth of sextuplets, granddaughters, whose mother dies during labour. Naming them after each day of the week, he makes the dangerous decision of taking them all in to his care, raising them in secret, and taking all necessary precautions to ensure that they live in secret.
When the girls have grown to an age where he feels comfortable, and confident that they are aware of the dangers of the outside world, and the consequences of anything that could mean the secret being uncovered, he allows each girl to go out on the day after which they were named, ie; Monday on Monday, Tuesday on Tuesday, and so on, and so forth. The girls each live their day outside as one Karen Settman.
As is the case with any group of children, the girls exhibit an array of personality traits from shy and demure to outgoing and rebellious, with the rebel of the seven causing a uncomfortable, and lasting, consequence for the other six siblings when she goes out on a day that she was not designated to do so, and suffers a painful injury.
Fast forward some 30 years we find that the girls have grown to adulthood successfully in secret, and while inside they exhibit their own personalities, do their own thing, and keep their own interests, they work very well together maintaining the life of Karen Settman out in the world. This is largely down to nightly debriefings from the one who went out that day, so that the others are aware of their role to maintain their cover.
This all works perfectly until Monday doesn't come home from work, leaving her sisters extremely worried about what could have happened to her, and Tuesday going blind to what is waiting for her outside, with no knowledge of the previous days happenings. It is now up to Tuesday and her sisters to figure out what happened to Monday.
The thing I love most about this film is it's concept, its what I love about the genre in general, as a dystopian future story can lend itself to anything that can cause a dystopia to happen, over population causing implementation of restricted breeding, or emotions being banned so that people don't fight, and cause war.
I also love the performances of Noomi, and Clara in the two stages of the girls' lives, the seven nuanced personalities demanded such range from both to capture the essence of the seven sisters, but also the prime character of Karen.
What also impressed me about this film, is the way in which the seven different characters were juxtaposed in the scenes they were together in. In no way was this done cheaply, or nasty, and definitely did not come off cheesy.

I'm not aware if this is a remake but it does stand in debt to the dystopic sci-fi of the seventies. Decent acting by lead Noomi Rapace against herself(s) with good support from Willem Dafoe. Scenery is well made but uninteresting and the same goes for the action. It is a quite forced how disparate the siblings are and their individual characters may be in different colours but are only one sheet thick. The story of their upbringing would be a more interesting story than what we have here. Ultimately, it is a predictable thing this entire weekly affair.

Tommy Wirkola steps away from his typically fun style of filmmaking for this dark and tragic scifi. But a good director's a good director and despite being maybe a little more predictable than it thinks, not to mention Glenn Close trying her hardest to derail he manages to pull off _What Happened to Monday_. Extra special props to Noomi Rapace who successfully plays not seven as advertised but **eight** different characters with virtually no overlap in characterisation.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

**Is it the best action movie made by Netflix? Could it be true?**
"Extraction" movie is an action movie based on a comic called Ciudad, which is a Spanish word means city.
The story of the movie is about a mercenary who is recruited to rescue a boy who was kidnapped by a very dangerous gang. I saw the advertisement for this movie and said it might be vulgar. You have seen many great action scenes with many explosions, guns and pursuits. Yes, it is a strong movie in terms of performance.
The world surrounding the movie is a poor, cruel, and frightening world that was shown. You see most of the scenes of the film were filmed in the slums of Bangladesh, and some in certain areas in India. It was depicted as a gloomy world with a lot of crime and corruption. The director manages to bring out this world shockingly.
Director Sam Hargrave has a background in action and law, and I have seen similar films directed in this way. The director understands action scenes and knows how to build a powerful moment and hold the viewer's breath in it.
There are some scenes that contributed to the decrease in the evaluation of people. I wanted to explain or explain more about some situations, so that the people's actions would be more logical to the viewer. There were many scenes that were not deep, and some scenes that contained poor and superficial effects and devoid of depth of meanings, such as the movement of smoke.
Chris Hemsworth is an action star, an actual action hero, a powerful action hero, and he carried the film on his shoulders, but he did as the director told him. The director didn't want to expand the deep action scenes. I do not deny that if the shots or the frame were wider and deeper than this, if the cameras used in filming the scenes were farther away, or their movement or vibration while filming the scenes were less than this, these scenes would have become clearer and more impressive.

I only watched this for David Harbour and he was great.

There's no two ways about it; Extraction is too long. On the plus side, it's violent yet painless. It gives us a fly-on-the-wall view of the action; at the same time, the over-the-shoulder third-person perspective assures us that what we have here is little more than videogame violence (except on two occasions, and even then we might give the film the benefit of the doubt, if we're feeling generous).
Extraction has a sound premise and lots of action pieces to go with it; highlights include an ingeniously shot high speed chase that keeps us on the edge of the (back)seat, and a brutal, close quarters, hand-to-hand combat between Chris Hemsworth and Randeep Hooda.
There is another, much less impressive fight, however. The villain employs children and teenagers as street soldiers, and there is a scene where they corner Hemsworth in an alley, and our hero, in a very un-heroic moment, proceeds to beat the crap out of them.
Technically, this sequence is not gratuitous; it's actually there for a reason. The problem is that the ending somehow seems to simultaneously justify and negate that reason. The other time Extraction goes too far is when the Child in the 'Badass and Child Duo' is forced to shoot David Harbour's character dead.
The rationale is that he does it to save Hemsworth's life, but this doesn't stand up under scrutiny. At a certain point Hemsworth and the kid are picked up by Harbour, an old friend and former comrade-in-arms of the former, who hides them in his house.
From the moment this character is introduced we know, because we've seen it in countless other action movies, that sooner rather than later he's going to betray the hero, so we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop. It's bad enough to have a teenager pull the trigger, but doing it in the name of such a tired cliché is inexcusable.
Moreover, Harbor's character and everything that has to do him should have been dropped altogether, because his introduction at the halfway point results in a slump from which Extraction only recovers half an hour later when a rocket sends a helicopter into a tailspin (at least it got my attention back).
This film is the directorial debut for Sam Hargrave, who would do well to study David Mamet's Spartan or Steven Soderbergh's Haywire for two textbook examples of economical action movies.
We don't really care much about the hero's past; what we want is to see him rescue the boy and get him to safety in the most entertaining and expeditious way possible – straight to the point, without beating around the bush.
Now, if the filmmakers feel it necessary for him to bond emotionally with the boy, then let him do it on the go, over the course of their adventure. There is within Extraction a serviceable action movie that its creators have almost ruined by trying to stretch it beyond the limitations of its genre.

Although the action is probably too abundant and the plot leaves much to be desired, one cannot help but admire the 11 minute pursuit scene, that looks as if it's been shot in a single take.
7/10

Really good watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend.
Chris Hemsworth gives a stellar carry of this movie. Not for lack of trying on the writers' part, the bulk of quality in this is movie is Hemsworth shooting his way through India. The reasoning of which really isn't all that important, in fact, it is a designed adversity that he is trying to save a kid's life. Without even watching the movie, I could have told you it wasn't worth killing so many people to rescue one kid.
The action is excellent and worth watching the rest of the movie: hell, you could even fast forward through the parts where they're not fighting. It reminded me a lot of Daredevil series, but focused on guns.
If you want to see some good action, give this a go, but I can't guarantee the actual story is anything you'll really get into.

The Dhaka in the film is surely from another multiverse. This may in future be tied up with Doctor Strange Multiverse Of Madness or something😑. And btw if Russo Bros call it cinema again, Mustafa Scorsese swears by Allah that he will shoot himself.

Click here for a video version of this review: https://youtu.be/5VSDwYyxjsA
_Extraction_ has just been released on Netflix and stars Chris Hemsworth as Tyler Rake, a former Special Forces soldier who now works as a mercenary. He takes on a high risk job rescuing the kidnapped child of a drug lord. Sounds pretty much like every other action movie doesn't it? Well it kinda is, and it kinda isn't.
It is a fairly standard action movie from the point of view of having a simple story, a clichéd hero with a tragic past, lots of fights, car chases, and explosions. But what steps this up somewhat is the quality of the action. This movie was put together by Sam Hargrave and the Russo brothers, who of course all made huge contributions to the Marvel cinematic universe, and are therefore people who understand how to string action sequences together.
This experience shows in brilliantly choreographed fight scenes that echo John Wick but which have a more real world feel like Jason Bourne. There’s fights that take place in a single room, others across multiple floors in an apartment block, and others out in the open street. Wherever the action needs to be the film-makers take you there and make you feel like you’re part of the action.
This is most evident in a car chase sequence that we paused and rewatched because it was so well put together. Shot to look like one like 15-ish minute take, the camera goes from outside the car to inside the car then out again and around the car and then back in and out the back window, it was excellent. I’ve seen some footage of how they filmed the externals and Hargrave literally strapped himself to the hood of a car to get the shots - a benefit of having a Stunt Co-ordinator as a Director, I guess. The end result was that it just added another level of intensity to an already balls-out sequence.
So yeah, this movie is one heck of a ride from start to finish, and while it might be light on story, the real reason to watch it is for its incredible action.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
A lot of times, people can’t figure out who was really in control of a particular movie. Was the director truly the person in charge of every creative and technical choice? Were the producers the ones responsible for most of the film? Or was the cast that carried the whole thing? Having in mind that Extraction is Sam Hargrave’s directorial debut, I have no doubt that the Russo brothers helped him achieve the spectacular action that this movie possesses. The complexity of each choreography screams Russo all the way through.
Now, I don’t want to take any credit from Hargrave! He has a clear vision of how the film should be like, and he delivers the best Netflix original action movie ever. While it’s true that this last sentence doesn’t really mean that much, it’s genuinely great and far better than every other original action flick distributed by the streaming network. Two key components make Extraction a success: its unbelievable, jaw-dropping action, and Chris Hemsworth’s extraordinary physical (and emotional) performance.
I’ll start with the actor. Chris Hemsworth is one of the most underrated actors working today. Everyone looks at his portrayal of Thor in the MCU, and think that he can’t do anything else. First of all, Thor is one of the characters that changed the most within that universe. Chris has demonstrated both his dramatic and comedic range interpreting this superhero. However, in Extraction, not only his physical display and stunts are out of this world (he actually does quite a lot of them), but he’s able to slow down and really delve into an emotionally compelling state. Brilliant performance!
Nevertheless, the action steals the show. Joe and Anthony Russo bring their Marvel’s experience of having to balance dozens of characters at the same time, and the impressive choreography elevates the film so damn much. During the promotion campaign, people kept talking about a stunning oner (one-take sequence), which Chris Hemsworth himself described as “the most complicated action sequence” he’s ever done… They were not joking nor overselling their movie. It’s genuinely a work of art.
I was so surprised by those (approximately) twelve minutes that I stopped the film, went back, and watched them again. I believe it’s one of the pros that home viewing has against theaters. Just to be clear, it’s not actually just one take. It’s a collection of long takes “stitched” together to make it seem (and feel) like a oner. However, it doesn’t diminish this incredibly technical achievement in any way, much on the contrary! The long takes are packed with all kinds of action: car chases, shootouts, knife fighting, hand combat, running, jumping, crawling, you name it.
I’m going to put myself at risk and state that it’s one of the best oners of an action flick in the last few years, especially if we don’t count the two best action sagas of today (Mission: Impossible, John Wick). Throughout the whole runtime, the action is exceptionally filmed. The editing is impeccable, the excitement is always there, and the sense of urgency is never lost. It rarely gets over-the-top, every time our protagonist gets hit, cut, or even shot, it never feels like he should be down and dead. It’s that base of realism inside an action movie that can make it become an outstanding success or a massive fail, and Extraction built a very solid one.
This film has all the ingredients of popcorn-entertainment, and I’m confident it will get huge praise from, at least, the general public. However, it’s evident that the Russo brothers and Hargrave didn’t offer the screenplay the same care that they had with the action. Even though it’s a pretty simple premise, the attempts at making secondary characters important or emotionally resonant fail its target completely. Even Tyler Rake gets a pretty cliche backstory that everyone has seen hundreds of times. I struggled to care for a single person or a relationship.
The reason behind the whole extraction procedure being due to some drug warlords is so formulaic that it’s honestly becoming annoyingly unimaginative. There isn’t even a logical reason for them to be fighting each other over one’s son. The movie also wraps up by leaving tons of questions unanswered regarding its plot, and with a ridiculous try at either being philosophical or actually ruining the entire thing. Finally, I was never a fan of films starting with a flashforward of the protagonist, especially in this genre. It takes away tension and suspense during the actual movie since the viewer knows the flashforward scene hasn’t happened yet.
In the end, Extraction is going to be remembered by its insane action and a fantastic lead performance by Chris Hemsworth. The latter is one of the most underrated actors working today, and he delivers not only a phenomenal physical performance but also an emotionally powerful display. The action is jaw-dropping at every level. The outstanding choreography plus the seamless editing are able to elevate the action into some of the best I’ve seen in the last few years, including a technically mind-blowing oner. The excitement levels are super high throughout the entire runtime, credit to the Russo brothers, who definitely helped the debutant Sam Hargrave in making a great film. However, the focus went all to the action, making the actual story and characters suffer from formulaic storytelling, cliche backstories, and an overall lack of emotional attachment. Still, Extraction is the best Netflix original action movie of its history, so don’t miss it!
Rating: B+

Independence Day: Resurgence makes a bold attempt to follow up on the legacy of its iconic predecessor, but it falls short in many areas. Liam Hemsworth delivers a solid performance, but the script doesn’t give him much to work with, leaving his character feeling shallow and unmemorable. The story itself is straightforward and predictable, offering little in terms of surprises or emotional engagement. Attempts at humor and drama sometimes feel forced, detracting from the overall experience.
While Roland Emmerich's direction keeps the film moving at a brisk pace, it often prioritizes spectacle over substance. The visuals work well enough to support the story, but they don’t push any boundaries, especially for a film released in 2016. Given the advancements in CGI and visual effects by that time, the production feels like a missed opportunity to deliver something truly jaw-dropping. Instead, it’s serviceable, doing just enough to convey the futuristic and alien elements but lacking the wow factor that could have elevated the experience.
In the end, Independence Day: Resurgence is a decent popcorn flick for fans of sci-fi action, but it doesn’t live up to the standards set by the original. It’s fun in parts but ultimately forgettable, leaving viewers with the sense that it could have been so much more.

Independence Day: Resurgence is pretty much what I expected. Actually, given all the negative reviews floating around, it is almost better than what I expected. As is almost always the case, all the 1 and 2 star ratings and “worst movie ever” reviews are pure bullshit. The biggest advantage the original movie had was the novelty of it all. This movie is really pretty much the same except for the special effects being even bigger to the extent that they are somewhat over the top at times and the plot somewhat thinner. Having said the latter, the original movie did not really have much in terms of plot either and the nonsense of giving a totally alien computer a virus was so bad it really dragged down the movie.
In the relatively short timespan of two decades humanity have improved their technology base by several orders of magnitude (ray guns on the moon etc. etc…). The speed of improvement is of course pretty unrealistic, even with access to alien technology, but hey, I can live with that in order to increase the coolness factor of the movie.
Then comes an alien ship. Not the aliens we all expected by another one. The ship is totally different from the previous ones, do not seem aggressive but of course dumbass politicians manage to screw everything up. Fast forward a couple of scenes and the “real” aliens arrive. Of course this time they have a bigger flyswatter and they perfunctorily proceed to swat away the puny, extremely slow firing, little ray guns of the humans and we are back to where we started in the original movie. Huge space ship parks on Earth, time for plan B.
Well there were quite a few scenes of big space ships, destruction and mayhem before the aliens finally manage to park their spaceship. I guess finding a parking space for a 5 000 kilometer space ship can be a bit tricky (I though I had an issue with my Jeep). Here is were I have quite some gripes about the movie. The special effects are cool, no question about it, but they are also exaggerated and throws any attempt to be remotely adhering to the laws of physics out the window. It is clear that whatever low intelligence storywriter that wrote that garbage flunked science classes in school, if he ever got that far of course. For instance, we have a 5 000 kilometer (the Earth radius is about 6 370 kilometer) that is big enough to generate its own gravity (apparently the engines somehow contributed to this) flies in and lands on earth. When it approaches items on the surface, cars, trains, ships, skyscrapers and bits and pieces of the Earth itself starts to fly upwards. It makes for cool effects but anyone with a mediocrum of intelligence ought to realize that such a force would actually destabilize Earth itself. Possibly change the speed of rotation as well as the orbit around the sun.
The story is full of other typical Hollywood stupidities and plot holes. Christ even my kids could spot the plot holes which were often big enough to drive a battleship through!
As for the acting. Well, I would say there is not too much to say about it. Most of the main actors managed to make it through the movie without screwing up too badly. Given that it was not the deepest or thought provoking movie one could imagine I would say that was good enough. The best character in my opinion was Judd Hirsch as Julius Levinson. The worst one was probably Dr. Okun. Not that Brent Spiner was making a bad job of representing him but the character was just to crazed out for my taste.
Okay, I will stop whining now. This movie was pretty much exactly what I expected. Great special effects tied together with a paper thin story. I went into it hoping that the effects were going to be good with little expectations on the rest and that is exactly what I got. The movie fulfilled my expectations completely and thus I consider it worth 7 out of 10 stars. I enjoyed the two hours watching it.

**The earthlings are united to defend the home from another alien attack.**
I have said it many times that when I love a film, I always pray for a sequel to come. But I won't do that for all the films like perhaps 'Taken' and this one. These are not designed for that kind of a stretch or to own a franchise. So anyway they have made it and I'd watched. Since I was not expecting it, I did not care about the how it ends. I mean critically failed and the box office was okay, but did not meet the expectations. I mean not found anywhere near to the original film's collection.
For me, minus half point for the Chinese flavour. I think the Hollywood must stop leaning towards Chinese contents. It is like they are ignoring the rest of the world. I want the old days American films, not this yuan targeted films. Sorry, that is one of the reasons why I disliked films like this, 'Now You See Me 2' and many other recent sino-Hollywood films.
This story takes place 20 years later to the original film. Only a handful of characters returned and many of them were new. So now the humans leaped forward after adapting the alien technology. But when they learn the distress call was sent to the base of the enemy from the 20 years ago event, they are underprepared for another alien attack that follows very soon. Without any option they push their full force to defend the earth and it would they succeed or not is what the remaining film to reveal.
Nowadays the graphics are not an issue. The filmmaking had touched down for a standard in the visual quality, especially a big production like this. So those parts even overplay the performances of the real actors. We have seen that from Gollum, King Kong and many other monster films. So if you are watching a today's high end film means, it is a pleasure from the blow ups we expect the most. Similar to killings from the horror thrillers. This film does that so well, that mean it is entertaining, but not the overall film very praisable.
This story can be easily connected to many classics such as 'Star Wars' and 'Avatar'. Because how it ends seems like a story about the origins of those films. So the third film is like definitely takes us deep into the space. Looks very interesting, but does it work is the real question. It is already in the work with the same director. So lets wait and see how it corrects its mistakes. Meantime, you can watch this if you haven't yet, but it is an average film.
_5.5/10_

"Independence Day: Resurgence entertains like few Hollywood blockbusters have of late, largely by foregoing pretension on every level and drilling down on the basic tenets of popcorn moviemaking..."
Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2016/6/22/independence-day-resurgence.html

Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995) is a step up from the second movie but still does not capture what made the first one great. The plot skips any buildup and throws McClane straight into a city-wide puzzle game, which keeps the pace fast but makes everything feel more scripted than natural. Instead of building tension, the movie rushes from one scenario to the next, making it feel like the characters are just following a trail without questioning anything. The script has some great banter, especially between Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, whose dynamic carries a lot of the movie. But the overall story feels more like a structured game than an unpredictable survival situation, which takes away from the suspense.
John McTiernan’s directing is solid, and the cinematography makes good use of the New York setting, but the action never feels as intense as it should. Jeremy Irons as the villain is decent, but he lacks the presence and impact of Hans Gruber, making the conflict feel less personal. The score and sound design keep the energy up, but they do not add much beyond standard action beats. While this is the better sequel, it still lacks the raw tension and creativity that made Die Hard a classic. It is fun, but it feels like a well-organized maze rather than a high-stakes battle for survival.

Bruce Willis returns as "McClane", this time being used as a plaything by a telephone terrorist named simply "Simon". Unsure as to why this man has alighted on him, he is now sent on a series of missions around the city - fail and a devastating bomb could go off. Along the way, he manages to recruit the assistance of Samuel L. Jackson ("Zeus") and together they they must stop more carnage - and thwart the perpetrator's ultimate intentions. It is a little repetitive at times, but there is plenty of on-screen chemistry between Jackson and Willis; their challenges are a little more cerebral and amusing and the plot builds well until quite an exciting, if just a little too far-fetched, denouement with a baddie whose voice we ought instantly to have recognised on the phone. This is just a simple, straightforward action adventure with no romance of familial nonsense to clutter it up and I quite enjoyed it.

***Big, dumb, fun action flick with Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson in New York City***
RELEASED IN 1995 and directed by John McTiernan, "Die Hard with a Vengeance" is the third of (currently) five installments in the Die Hard series. In this one, suspended New York City cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) rejoins the force to tangle with a mad-but-genius German bomber named “Simon” (Jeremy Irons) while teaming up with a good Samaritan from Harlem (Samuel L. Jackson).
This franchise fills the bill if you're in the mood for big, dumb, fun action thrills. Don't get me wrong because a lot of work goes into making these kinds of films and it takes talent & genius to pull them off. I mean "dumb" in the sense that the focus is on unbelievable action rather than deeper themes beyond "genuinely good people may be flawed, cocky and somewhat profane, but they're courageous and never give up in the face of evil."
The Die Hard flicks are the natural progeny of over-the-top films like 1977's "The Gauntlet" where the action scenes are so overdone they're cartoony, but entertaining. There's a thin line that filmmakers must tread with these kinds of blockbusters because they can easily fall into overKILL, like 2001's "The Mummy Returns."
"Die Hard with a Vengeance" evades that ditch because it offers entertaining protagonists & antagonists, amusing scenes, worthy bits of character development and a compelling comic booky story.
While all five Die Hard movies are of the same action expertise, I prefer the sequels because the original film took place almost entirely in and around a skyscraper. I favor the wider location scope of the others, including this one, which was the best up to this point.
It starts out a little shaky because Simon’s shenanigans are so contrived they’re unbelievable, but if you can persevere the story builds momentum and there are surprises. Even John and Zeus’ conflict-habituated relationship has a story arc with Zeus being bluntly confronted with his reverse racism. The sometimes contrary camaraderie of John and Zeus is great.
THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hours, 8 minutes and was shot in New York City; Berkeley County, South Carolina; and Jessup, Maryland (ending). ADDITIONAL CAST: Graham Greene and Colleen Camp are on hand as cops while sharp Sam Phillips appears as an icy Euro-villainess.
GRADE: A-/B+