With this having been the first DH film I ever watched (and the only one so far I have seen upon its original theatrical release), I hold a quiet sense of satisfaction that over time it seems to have become generally people's favourite of the series, next to the original. It is much more original than its predecessor, and has much higher-caliber supporting players in Jeremy Irons and Samuel L. Jackson--not to mention the best director the franchise has ever had.
This was great to see once again, and I STILL have nightmares with that wicked Katya (played by composer Sam Phillips) slicing my head off...

**The Book of Eli is a gritty post-apocalyptic tale with savage action and a twist ending that will make you want to watch it all over again.**
The Book of Eli plays like a modern-day Mad Max or other 80s post-apocalyptic tale but stripped of its campiness and reinforced with Denzel’s reliable, powerful, and yet vulnerable performance. Washington’s mysterious Eli is driven and focused solely on his mission, but as the plot progresses, he grows to care for a person in need. The action sequences are brutal and precise, emphasizing Eli’s incredible skill and immediately defining him as a force to be reckoned with. Mika Kunis and Gary Oldman bring strong performances to the supporting cast, further grounding a movie that could have easily ended up as another goofy end-of-the-world film. The ending surprises making the audience want to immediately rewatch the movie with this new revelation and see it with new eyes. The Book of Eli is one of my favorite Denzel movies in a catalog of incredible films.

This time it is Denzel Washington's turn to star in a post-apocalypse tale and although he is competent here, the film offers very little new for us. He ("Eli") treks across the USA, ostensibly aimlessly, seeking comfort where he can; avoiding the lawless gangs who would steal his clothes if they got a chance whilst he feasts on small critters and takes solace from his secret book. Eventually (it seemed) he encounters the rather ruthless "Carnegie" (a menacing but rather under-used Gary Oldman) for whom he initially takes up the cudgels before realising that what "Carnegie" really wants is the book and he will stop at nothing to get it! The production looks good, plenty of attention to detail, but the pace is really slow for the most part. It takes an age for us to accumulate enough information about the man and his book, and the set-piece fight scenes are more a testament to acrobatics than acting. Religiosity is part of the narrative, but it is too superficial and undercooked to make more than a tangential impact on what is essentially a derivate and unremarkable pilgrim's story that could have offered us so much more had that thread been better and more fully developed. The use of light and the photography in general are effective; they do present us with an eerily effective bleakness, but otherwise - it's all a bit so-so.

The Book of Eli is one of those films that, at first glance, doesn't offer a terribly thrilling premise: a post-apocalyptic world, a lone wolf who fights for whatever is left of the good of mankind, and the young, naive and somewhat annoying girl he reluctantly takes under his wing. And of course, the bad guy. Sure, there are many more films like this you can find at any local video store.
However, when you put two acting grandmasters like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman head to head, you already know you're in for a treat. And in that respect, "Eli" absolutely delivers. Denzel Washington, in the role of Eli, does what he does best: he delivers his most perfect rough-around-the-edges, I'm-a-good-guy-but-I-don't-care routine we all know and love. He is a hard knock alright, and he has absolutely no problem whatsoever severing a few of your body parts if you get in his way. But he is still good to the core, one of the few decent human beings left in a world forsaken of decency. All you need to do to know this is look in his eyes, because the warmth and charisma Washington possesses say it all, even if he is completely covered in scar tissue.
And then there's Gary Oldman. Good old Gary Oldman. I have to say, it's really nice to see him play a stone cold, heartless scumbag once again, especially after his soft good guy role in Batman, where he was almost dorky – to no fault of his own of course, but still. This man deserves to get every inch of space to act freely, and thank goodness, the Hughes brothers allowed him exactly that. He plays a sort of mob boss, the self-appointed leader of a dingy little town and owner of the bar. He beats his wife, prostitutes his stepdaughter and he does it smiling. He is the most filthy kind of evil, absolutely rotten and loving it. Why? We don't know. He's just a bastard, and that's that.
Which is another thing I really like about this film, even though I realize many other people might actually hate it: it offers absolutely no motives, no answers, no explanations to anything, no bite size plot lines, nothing. There's no intro, no voice-over telling you where we are and what's going on. Only half-way through the film there is a scene with Eli and Solara (played by Mila Kunis) where he tells her a little bit about his life, but that's it. Like I said, some people might hate this, so if you are the kind of person who likes a formula-driven action flick with catchy punch lines and nothing to think about, this is not the film for you.
I would also like to make a little note on Mila Kunis. I must admit, I first had some doubts about her taking on a genre like this (although I was impressed with her performance in Black Swan, but that's a completely different kind of film, and other than that I only know her from That 70's Show), and throughout her first couple of scenes, she didn't do much to remove those doubts. However, as the film progressed, she got her act together and in the end, delivered a credible performance.
The visuals are stunning from start to finish. If you are a fan of the new, Frank Miller type of film style with high contrast colours and surreal scenery, you really need to see this. The bleak colours and images of darkness set against a really bright sky make the atmosphere heavy and haunting, making the anxiety of the characters almost tangible. You can just feel dryness, the desert, the hunger and the thirst. The western-like scenery of the town with the "saloon" at the heart of it, only adds to that sensation.
Another thing I'd like to mention is a quality not many modern-day films possess: the lost art of being silent. It is very rare for a film in this genre to simply be so... still. There is no dialogue except where it's absolutely necessary, and even the music is only used to actually add something to the scenes, but never as filler. The absence of sound here is just as important as its presence. Perfect.
On a similar note, the final credits go to Atticus Ross, who created an absolutely magnificent soundtrack, with music that sounds somewhat like the hybrid lovechild of Trent Reznor and Thom Yorke. It's just stellar and truly adds (emotional) value to every scene.
Finally, I'm not going to tell you what the story is about, I will simply recommend that you go into it with an open mind and no prior knowledge. That's what I did and it worked perfectly. (I will only say that you really need to stick around for the awesome, slap-in-the-face plot twist at the end!)
Of course it's not the best film ever made, but I still give it a 10, simply because it's beautiful, it's cool and it delivers a few excellent and satisfactory action scenes. And because it's been a really long time since I have downloaded a soundtrack immediately after seeing the film.
Original? No. Eye-candy? Absolutely.
Go see it.
_(April 2011)_

Angelina Jolie brings loads of energy and attitude to this action-packed CGI fest. She's the eponymous daughter of a titled archaeologist who lives at (and regularly wrecks) her family's Buckinghamshire manor house. She's at an auction where an ancient gizmo sells for way over the odds. She manages to procure said bejewelled object and next thing her house is being attacked and the piece is stolen. She now has to use all of her wits and considerable ninja skills to track it down and that involves following it's trail to an ancient site that's long been hidden in China's icy wastes. It's all very formulaic, yes, but with Daniel Craig and Iain Glen adding to the duplicity and even the odd appearance from her motivational dad (Jon Voight) it brings the video game to life quite enthusiastically. Jolie proves to be quite a charismatic lead and the visual effects do their job adequately mingling the "Stargate" with the "Mummy" quite impressively. Nope, it will never trouble a BAFTA jury but as a piece of adventure cinema it's perfectly watchable with a lively soundtrack and a constantly moving storyline.

I thought this was a good movie to bring to life from a video game. Angelina Jolie was the perfect person for this role. It's pretty much like the video game.

**Lara Croft: Tomb Raider captures the spirit of the games and casts the perfect actress as its lead. It's not a perfect film, but one it's still of the better video game adaptations ever made.**
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider had high expectations to overcome with legions of die-hard video game fans wanting to see everything they dreamed of on the big screen. With a perfect lead actress and a director known for wild action films, Tomb Raider was brought to life in one of the most faithful video game adaptations ever made (for better or worse). This movie brought the 2000s-era Tomb Raider games to life with all the style and camp of the decade - Matrix glasses, grunge rock, mediocre computer effects, and over-the-top action. While it wasn't a mind-blowing epic, it was a fun ride that captured some of the Indians Jones meets James Bond style of the games. Angelina Jolie was born to play this role and nailed the look and strength of Lara Croft and looked like she had a blast doing it too. Throw in Daniel Craig before he was Bond and every video game movie's villain, Ian Glen, and you got yourself a ridiculous 2000s action flick that nails the Tomb Raider spirit of that time. With the same vibe and effects of the Resident Evil movie franchise, Tomb Raider has flaws, but it's still a lot of fun. Don't take it too seriously and you will have a good time.

Great movie. This is how grown ups like to party. My family would fit right in with these guys.

I think you have to treat this depiction of Dracula on it's own merits. There is no point comparing it with anything you've seen already. Given that, it is a perfectly watchable, and forgettable, adventure film with Luke Evans as Prince Vlad making the vampiric equivalent of a "deal with the devil" with Charles Dance to prevent his family and his kingdom from being over-run by the Turks. Dominic Cooper is really terrible as the Ottoman Sultan, though - his accent sounds like it's been finessed in his local kebab shop after too many tequila slammers on a Friday night. Evans is fine in the role, there is plenty of action and the visual effects are adequate too. Expect nothing earth shattering and you won't be let down.

Bram Stoker's Count Dracula is textbook example of my Evil Iceberg Theory (the less you see of and know about a villain, the better). In an epistolary novel, the title character is the only one who doesn’t set his thoughts down in letters or in a diary (or, like Dr. Seward, a phonograph recording).
If, as Lovecraft wrote, "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown," then Dracula is the embodiment of this fear; inscrutable, unknowable, unreachable, impossible to negotiate or reason with.
Moreover, it’s futile to try to assign him complex motivation; like the shark in Jaws or Dr. Lecter, the Count kills to feed — no more, no less. Taking all this into account, it's easy to see how bad an idea Dracula Untold really is.
The story is narrated — a long time after it took place, though oddly in the same childlike voice the narrator had when the events trasnspired — by Ingeras (Art Parkinson), son of Vlad III Draculea, aka the Impaler, aka Son of the Dragon, aka Son of the Devil, aka Dracula; let's just call him Vlad (Luke Evans).
"In the year of our Lord 1442, the Turkish sultan enslaved 1,000 children from Transylvania to fill the ranks of his army." One of these children grew up to become Vlad, who "disgusted by his monstrous deeds ... buried his past with the dead and returned to Transylvania to rule in peace." So Vlad just took his ball and went home. Just like that, no revolt required. Someone should tell the Sultan how slavery really works.
This notwithstanding, Wallachia and Transylvania remain under Ottoman rule, and Vlad must pay an annual tribute to Sultan Mehmed II (Dominic Cooper); one can't help wondering why these two peoples are so hostile to each other, especially seeing how they share the lingua franca of British English.
Mehmed takes it upon himself to 'enslaving' a thousand other children (perhaps the first thousand just walked away like Vlad?), including Ingeras. Vlad refuses, and knowing that this means war, goes to a cave in a mountain to seek help from "a vampire. From the Greek word pi, to drink [actually 'pi' is a Greek letter; the language in which it is a word that means 'drink' or 'suck' is Albanian]. The beast was once a mortal man who summoned a demon from the depths of hell to barter for his dark power. The demon deceived the man, granting his wish, but his price was an eternity condemned to the darkness of that cave, where he remains until he finds another to free him."
The cave vampire (Charles Dance), who once was a Roman and thus speaks, like all Romans do in the movies, the Queen's English, gives Vlad a sip of his blood, and with it “a taste of my power. The strength of 100 men. The speed of a shooting star. Domain of the night and all its creatures. See and hear through your senses. Even heal grievous wounds ... Once you drink, your thirst for human blood will be insatiable. But if you can hold out for three days, you will return to your mortal state having tasted my power, and perhaps saved your people. [What if I feed?] I will be freed having granted the darkness a worthy offering. You will become … like me. A scourge on this earth destined to destroy everything you love… I, however, will be free to unleash my wrath against the one who betrayed me. And one day, I will call upon you to serve me, my pawn, in an immortal game of revenge."
All this does is show that sometimes no explanation is the best explanation. Let's compare Coppola’s Dracula, in whose introduction — featuring modern Romanian dialogue with medieval English syntax (perhaps not historically correct but still much better than English-English) — Gary Oldman plunges his sword into the stone cross of a chapel, and drinks the blood that flows from it.
This doesn't necessarily make any more sense, but at least it's short and to the point, and Coppola has the good sense to not even try to explain it.
Conversely, all of Dracula Untold’s heavy exposition only raises more questions than it answers. How did this Roman guy end up in Transylvania? Are there no caves in Rome? Why can't he leave the cave and Vlad can? What exactly does "an immortal game of revenge" mean? This phrase simply reeks of oxymoron.
Speaking of Coppola, he was the second to make the character of Dracula and the historical Dracula one and the same person, and add a Reincarnation Romance to the plot (the first was Dan Curtis in his own 1974 Bram Stoker's Dracula, written by Richard Matheson).
Director Gary Shore and screenwriters Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless repeat the formula in Dracula Untold, but their mistake is making an entire movie out of this premise. If they had done their homework, they would know that the link to Vlad III is tenuous at best, and that the real and probably only reason Stoker used the name 'Dracula' is because he was under the mistaken impression that it meant 'devil' in Romanian (but who knows; maybe the confusion of ' Greek pi' with Albanian 'pi' was a tribute to this linguistic faux pas on the Irish author’s part).

Dracula: The dark Superman
RELEASED IN 2014 and directed by Gary Shore, "Dracula Untold” tells the origin of Dracula: In the 15th century Prince Vlad the Impaler (Luke Evans) must protect his small kingdom of Wallachia (in modern-day Romania) from a Turk warlord (Dominic Cooper) who demands a thousand boys from Wallachia & Transylvania, including Vlad’s son. Threatened by the unsurmountable Turk army, Vlad desperately makes a dubious pact with a formidable caged vampire in order to acquire its dark powers and save his family & kingdom. Sarah Gadon plays Vlad’s winsome wife.
The producers flirted with the idea of “Dracula Untold” being part of Universal’s Dark Universe; and the epilogue of the movie, set in the modern world, suggests this, insinuating a franchise. This idea was dropped, however, and “The Mummy” (2017) became the first official film in the Dark Universe. In any case, “Dracula Untold” was fairly successful at the Box Office, making $56.3 million in North America and $217.1 million worldwide against a cost of $70 million.
My title blurb pretty much tells you all you need to know: “Dracula Untold” is basically the dark Superman of 15th century Eastern Europe where Dracula wields the power to defeat a thousand-man army. If you like the great prologue to Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992), you’ll probably like this movie, which gives several nods to that forerunner.
The film LOOKS awesome and has a fine cast. But unlike “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” it’s rapidly paced and doesn’t leave much room to breathe; so the characterizations aren’t quite deep enough. It’s good, but somehow hollow and forgettable. “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” was perhaps a little too slow while “Dracula Untold” is too hurried. I wish the creators found the happy medium between the two because, with just a little bit more time and attention to detail, it could’ve been great.
THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour, 32 minutes and was shot entirely in Northern Ireland. WRITERS: Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless.
GRADE: B

That the so called “critics” at Rotten Tomatoes screws this movie over is not really a surprise. Said “critics” are usually out of sync with both my opinions and the opinions of most of the viewers which can be seen again from the fact that these people give this movie a 23% rating whereas the actual viewers give it a 60% rating. At lot of “purists” also seem to take a disliking to this movie. Well, the movie is named Dracula Untold so it should be no surprise that the story would be a new one.
Personally I found this movie quite enjoyable. Yes it is not the original Dracula story but it is not straying too far from the basic origins and it is really a quite decent story unlike some of the disastrous Hollywood rewrites. The original story claims that Dracula became a vampire during his battles with the Turks and this movie picks up on that and tells the story of how that happened. Unlike most (all?) Dracula movies, Dracula is not really the bad guy but rather the inverse and the movie tells a story about sacrifices and Dracula’s quest to keep some of his humanity, moral and sanity.
It would not be a Dracula movie without some blood flowing and this movie delivers without overdoing it. Actually the actual bloodsucking stuff is quite played down until the end of the movie. There are a fair amount of fights against the Turks (who are the real bad guys in this movie) though and blood as well as various body parts no longer attached to their proper places does float around quite a bit. The special effects are not forgotten and I quite liked the bat swarms that Dracula commanded during the final fights against the Turks.
I found Luke Evans performance as the prince and unwilling Dracula to be quite good. The rest of the characters were also well played. I am sure that none of them will be nominated for Oscars due to their part in this movie but I have nothing negative to say about their performance.
On the whole I found this movie quite enjoyable and I definitely disagree with all the people blasting it. I did also quite like the last couple of scenes in modern time at the end which teased of a follow up movie. I would definitely like to see that happen.

FX, Evans and Dance's performances are the only things to save in this movie.
If you think Dracula becoming a hero and a martyr is a good idea, you will like it. Otherwise, like in my case, you will think that it was the worst idea in quite some time.
So, Dracula is not the most evil creature in the world any more ... :(

This is a quite different zombie movie. I think it can best be described as a romantic zombie movie with a humorous touch and some action thrown in for good measure. It is not at all a bad movie. I do prefer the “shot everything that moves and when it doesn’t move anymore shot some more just to be sure” type of zombie movies but I still quite enjoyed this one. The words “romantic” and “zombie” is of course two words that you really would never expect to see in the same sentence. Surprisingly enough it does indeed work in this movie.
I think my main enjoyment of this movie was the voice-over with R’s thoughts though. At times it is incredibly funny. The actual story, that the zombies’ magically starts to heal themselves is of course pretty nonsensical but you do not really watch zombie movies for their elaborate plot anyway. I have seen worse and this was not really supposed to be a horror-zombie movie anyway so I can live with that.
This is the first zombie-movie that I have watched where you actually see the story from the zombies perspective. Another thing that, surprisingly enough, worked quite well. The voice-overs helped a lot to make that happen.
The special effects are fairly low key for being a zombie movie but I would say that they are just about right for this movie. The “bonies” are the most monster-like ones in the movie and their make-up is quite cool. Unfortunately their movements are quite stiff and look decidedly computer generated. That is a shame and pretty much the only complaint I have concerning the actual implementation of this movie.
Unless you are totally allergic to zombies I would recommend watching this movie. I would especially recommend it if you are not normally into zombie movies. You are likely to be surprised.

If you like zombie's gener you will love this movie ... or not!
It cheats in a cheap way through creating 2 level of zombies: the good ones and the bad ones. Also, it breaks tons of zombies stereotypes to be able to build the story, that's why you may end hating it if you are a "purist".
As this is not my case, I really enjoyed this movie. Fun script, good casting and great performances by Hoult and Palmer. Also, always a pleasure to watch a movie with John Malkovich.

Even if Contagion has a decent star line up for a disease epidemic movie such as Matt Damon, Jude Law and Laurence Fishburne but the film itself actually felt really flat and I thought it was very disappointing to be honest. I was actually expecting a lot more from this but instead the story just wasn't very thrilling and exciting and most of the main characters were completely meaningless and uninteresting.
Matt Damon plays one of the better main characters who is trying to keep his daughter safe from the infection but I think this subplot was very underdeveloped and they could have expanded on this more to give it more of a thrilling story to really show the world going to Hell. I mean the film itself is ok but it's a very flawed and I was actually expecting a more bleak ending.

I have a special place in my heart for the medical thriller. Looking back, I believe it stems both from being sick a lot when I was a kid, and from really enjoying great ones over the years, like 'Coma' and 'Outbreak'. As well, more recently I remember the panic both my son's mother and I tended to have when our son was born during the SARS epidemic back in 2003. Needless to say, when one of these films comes along, it's only a matter of time before it crosses my path.
Director Soderbergh is intelligent enough to really make this material work, going at it from every conceivable angle (and many inconceivable ones!) yet still giving it coherence in a decent runtime (not a Bay-esque three hours) and there's enough star power to keep one's attention. The best kind of review for these sort of films is that it leaves you thinking twice before you have an affair, or even throw out your Kleenex, and that's specifically what Soderbergh's work here does.

Since watching this movie I think I feel differently when people around me start sneezing.

'Bumblebee' is a decent attempt at a reset of sorts for this franchise, but unfortunately I found it to be a bit boring. There admittedly isn't much to whine about, though alternatively nothing overtly positive springs to my mind about it either. It is still one of the better from the series.
Hailee Steinfeld and John Cena are the two that are most noteworthy on the cast, across both the human and robot actors. Steinfeld does good and is a well chosen lead, Cena feels a little off from his usual schtick but is perfectly OK. None of the voice cast stand out to be honest, despite the presence of Angela Bassett.
The titular character is an interesting decision to give a spin-off (prequel) film to, I can't say he stood out to me in the preceding entries. In fact, if I hadn't already known that they had based a movie around him I wouldn't have really took any extra notice of the yellow robot. As a 'Transformers' noob, I thought Optimus Prime would've been the logical choice?
I do appreciate that this one decided to be more story-driven, as opposed to matching the bombastic action that preceded it. There are some alright moments in there in fairness, I was just never noticeably hooked into what I was following onscreen.

So I thought that "Herbie" had it tough! Well his traumas look like tea with the Queen compared to poor old "Bumblebee"! He actually starts off life with the much less friendly moniker of "B-127" when he is sent to Earth to set things up amidst what looks like the end of the war between the his "Autobots" and the "Decepticons" on their home planet of "Cybertron". He lands slap bang in the middle of some top secret American military testing that handily looks at all things extra-terrestrial and that's when we encounter the menacing "Burns" (John Cena) who deduces that our yellow Meccano is not natural and that it must be hunted down and captured or destroyed. As if that we're not enough, "Blitzwing" is also on the planet and they have a duel that renders our yellow hero unable to speak and forced to turn into his more recognisable motor car shape while he repairs the damage from that combat and awaits his pals. "Charlie" (Hailee Steinfeld) discovers it hiding in a scrapyard and by touching things she shouldn't, activates all sorts of beacons and gadgets that breaks his cover and summons friend and foe alike for the usual slew of "Transformer" tear 'em limb from limb escapades. There's quite a bit of fun from the dialogue and the visual effects are enjoyable too as we follow a well trammelled path of formulaic storytelling, tempered with a little human bonding, and some mediocre acting. They've tried to give "Bumblebee" some personable characteristics - think of a less cowardly "C-3PO", but as an action adventure it's all just a bit long and predictable. The denouement is quite action-packed, though, and I think it's at the better end of this franchise so just about worth two hours.

Strong contender for best live-action _Transformers_ movie ever made, but Christ, what a low fuckin' bar that is. The fact it isn't the clear and absolute winner is a devastating criticism.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Decent, by the numbers, popcorn movie. Better than the other live action Transformers movie, but still not very good. Best parts were the fight scenes, especially on Cybertron. Otherwise, it was average, 5/10.

"Danny" (Robin Williams) and wife "Miranda" (Sally Field) just can't go on any longer with their marriage. Their constant rowing and her husband finally jacking in his job as a voice-over artiste of some cigarette-based "creative differences" see her get a divorce. "Danny" adores his three kids but is only given visitation rights for a Saturday until he can prove worthy of more. He manages to get a basic job, but misses his brood terribly. When he hears that "Miranda" is seeking a housekeeper, he hits on the idea of getting his gay brother "Frank" (Harvey Fierstein) and his boyfriend - who are into prosthetics - to make him a mask and some body-altering clothes and et voilà - he is now the English (but Scottish sounding?) "Mrs Doubtfire". "Miranda" takes to her instantly - after some mischievous ground-laying work be her ex, and soon (s)he is back in the family home amongst the children (s)he loves. With court-ordered inspections of his home regularly taking place, it is only a matter of time before this wheeze is rumbled but "Danny" hopes that his employer at a television network for kids (Robert Prosky) might appreciate the character he has created, boost the flagging ratings and maybe that way he can make enough money to restore his family to him? Meantime, the wealthy and smarmy "Stuart" (Pierce Brosnan) is looming on the horizon trying to woo his way into the family's good books - an operation that "Mrs. Doubtfire" watches and abhors at first hand. She's quite a dab hand with a lime at thirty paces! For most of this, it showcases Williams' considerable skills as a mimic and comedy actor - his timing is great. The film does rather fall off a cliff for me during the last half hour in the restaurant, though, where the comedic surrenders to the slap-stick and the joke comes crumbling down leaving us in a well of cringing sentimentality that I didn't particularly enjoy. That said, it's ground-breaking cinema that illustrates just what a dad will do to to be with his children and it takes a huge great swipe at sexual stereotyping too. There's a gentle chemistry between Williams and Field and there are some lovely, vicious, one liners thrown in for us to savour. Not great, but very good.

Some very powerful moments. Some very relatable moments. But it's also nice to see a queer drama which (despite a character's homosexuality being the core of the narrative) isn't wholly fucking depressing.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Love, Simon is a safe, non-threatening, formulaic, consumable pastiche created to make straight audiences feel progressive for watching a "gay" movie.

'Annabelle' disappoints, it's unexpectedly extremely uninteresting. For a 90 or so minute movie, it sure does drag its feet to its conclusion. After a decent set-up in 'The Conjuring' for a creepy-looking doll, I thought this was going to be entertaining. It's not.
Those on the cast are also a little underwhelming, not helped by what's around them of course. I know Annabelle (nice) Wallis is a better actor than shown here, same goes for Alfre Woodard; not that either are bad, but if I didn't already know them I wouldn't even be noting them to be honest.
There are like two watchable moments in this, though they are literally few and far between as one's neighbourly at the beginning and the other wraps the story up. I'm possibly being a touch generous with my rating, if the run time was any longer then I'd probably not be so. Poor film.

The movie isn't really that scary. It's still a good movie. Just that dam porcelain doll looks creepy as hell.

I personally am of the opinion that _The Conjuring_ was pretty overrated, but I at least I could see why some people thought it was okay. _Annabelle_ on the other hand, was never at any point anything other than hackneyed, unoriginal garbage. No saving graces to be found here.
_Final rating:★ - Of no value. Avoid at all costs._

Tis time to move on from conduit demons.
*** This review contains minor spoilers ***
It doesn't have James Wan's name on the director's chair, but it's every inch a James Wan film. There seems to be a rut that has emerged where this new brand of horror film makers can't see that recycling the same ideas is, well, kinda dull.
Insidious, Dead Silence and The Conjuring have their critics (not me, I like them all very much), but the timing was right for them to hit the mark of many a horror film lover. Tapping into the fear of the doll and the demon hadn't been done for some time, certainly not with any conviction, so all good there for the fans.
Annabelle spins off from The Conjuring, and Dead Silence to a degree, but just comes off as a lazy cash-cow. The doll is a spooky monstrosity (most unlike the real Rag-Dolly-Anna version), but it's all a bit of a con, the makers resorting to another demonic being, only Red Darth Maul has now been replaced by Blue Lagoon The Loon.
Character's actions are often preposterous, stretching credulity to breaking point (I know you are being menaced by the unknown, but I got a conference to go to, sleep tight babe!). Elsewhere, while everyone acknowledges that what scares you is subjective, but the scares here are very thin on the ground, not helped by a dull script and bland lead actors.
It's tidy enough a production, granted, but familiarity breeds contempt and it's hoped that Wan's return to the director's chair for The Conjuring 2 (where we revisit the realm of poltergeist activity), signals a return to form for his horror stable. 5/10

This is so bad despite it being really good yet I still think it’s good despite me thinking it’s really bad.