These guys are the very meaning of dumb. They don't get any dumber then this. Even though there pretty dumb they still were smarter then the bad guys, just because their dumb!

Very funny. Not just silly. I often cite this film as my favourite all time film. It took me time to watch it for the first time as it looked like a number of other films which are silly and claim to be hilarious but usually miss the point. This film nails it. The comedy is constant and is cleverly done with situations fitting nicely into the storyline which acts as the perfect vehicle for the perfect delivery of an amazing script. The Carrelly brothers other films are good too but usually have something uncomfortable in. Dumb and Dumber is their masterpiece. I can imagine them finishing it, then going over the script asking, "what else can we add to this joke to make it funnier?" A very difficult film to beat in comedy. I'm going to watch it again now.

In the best tradition of Disney, this film has a rousing score and looks stunning; but just like the recent rehash of "the Lion King" is entirely an example of style over substance. Maleficent is meant to be evil - like Venger from "Dungeons and Dragons". Instead we get a sugary, goody-goody with all the venom of a water snake. Robert Lindsay, Chiwitel Ejiofor and Harris Dickinson fail to make any impression at all leaving Michelle Pfeiffer to reprise her role from "Stardust" and try to salvage something - anything - from a very weak storyline. It seems uncertain as to whom this film is actually for - but if it is meant to be for children, then it has no business being two hours long.

A lot better then the first. This one had a lot more action and some epic battles. Easily the best out of the series.

More sluggish than entertaining, for me anyway.
I enjoyed the first film, but 'Maleficent: Mistress of Evil' is one I never really got into. The whole premise surrounding Angelina Jolie's character is uninteresting, not helped by a lack of serious rationale for why characters, other than Maleficent, are acting the way they are; namely Michelle Pfeiffer's Queen Ingrith. At best, it's lame motivation.
Jolie remains the star, while Elle Fanning is solid enough. Pfeiffer isn't as enjoyable as she should be, mainly due to the aforementioned, but still produces a good display. Chiwetel Ejiofor is a terrific addition to the cast, but I can't honestly say I'll remember his performance here - which is a shame.
Warwick Davis is, slightly, underused too. Also, how strange to see former professional footballer John Carew on the cast; albeit in a minor role. The effects are, pleasingly, an upgrade at least; they all look great.
I hold no ill feelings towards this, I just wish it was greater.

Great watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
This was a very impressive sequel to the original. I'm sure it had something to do with low expectations, "What are they going to do to follow THAT....ohhhh".
It's probably the first time I've registered a large scale battle like this movie has since....I guess "Infinity War", but "Lord of the Rings" seems more apt as it is a fantasy movie as well.
What's really odd is that this movie has too many story lines, but still manages to balance them acceptably. It also goes the extra mile to explore the angle of "it doesn't matter how different we are, but what we do with our potential" sort of thing. There are race traitors, and true examples of evil disregard for life. Michelle Pfieffer really owns her role as an evil queen, and sure they go into backstory to give a modicum of justification, but she gets into death in a very psychotic fashion, not to mention the page.
While the most charming part of the movie is the most boring, unity and peace, it is amazing at the great lengths people will go to prevent such a thing, and that's really the movie that you're watching here: someone going to every length to be a hero, and just being a jerk instead.
Well worth the watch, and I think most would enjoy even without having watched the first.

‘Maleficent: Mistress of Evil’ is not only a surprising follow-up to the original film, but also among 2019’s live-action Disney offerings is the only one that I actually sat through and enjoyed. It made me laugh, and the action is really engaging. Jolie and Pfeiffer are having so much fun that you can't help but join in. Yes, it’s filled with flaws, but it’s nice to leave a Disney film not wanting to cry in a ball and question if you really ever liked them.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-maleficent-mistress-of-evil-disney-still-have-some-magic-left-in-them

**Without being brilliant, this is an honest film, which gives us what it promises and which harmoniously combines dramatic tension, touches of romance and quality action.**
Overall, I was quite satisfied with this film: it's not a really original thriller, but it has an interesting enough story to catch our attention and make us watch everything without feeling like we're wasting our time. It all revolves around an autistic accountant with a very interesting client list, which includes all types of mobsters and criminals. Of course, he attracts the attention of the authorities and, as the cops get closer to their target, things start to heat up and the action starts to get more interesting.
Directed by Gavin O’Connor, the film unfolds without dead moments and without the romantic sub-plot seeming to be too much or simply taking up space. The pace is not too fast, but we also don't feel bored at any point. On a more technical level, there is truly nothing that stands out or exceeds the average, apart from the action scenes, which are well-thought-out and done with care. As a piece of entertainment, this is a film that gives us what it promises and is honest in the promises made, without ever proving brilliant or unforgettable.
Affleck is a solid protagonist and offers us a confident and confident interpretation of a character that, in the hands of a less experienced actor, could even seem somewhat offensive to someone who is truly autistic. I didn't feel that, nor did it seem to me that the actor was overacting. The film also features good performances by Anna Kendrick and John Lithgow.

**Overall : A fresh action standout with unique characters and excellent fight sequences. The Accountant's numbers just add up!**
The Accountant was an unexpected action thriller with unique character choices. Ben Affleck's Chris Wolff is a highly capable and efficient hitman with high functioning autism that leads a double life as a forensic accountant-not a typical main character in an action movie and is handled brilliantly well. However, the true highlight of this movie is the writing making each moment and character feel fresh and memorable. Fantastic action sequences and an outstanding cast, along with the exceptional writing, elevates The Accountant well above average action flicks to a special must-see action standout.

**He's not the same man inside out!**
The film was powerful, one of the best of the year I have seen. From the director of 'Warrior'. The story of a freelance accountant who was hired by a company to find the financial frauds. But when he's on the verge to uncover the names, the company rolls back over one of its member's death in the following day. It does not stop there, the life threat tails him and all who were involved with him. Now the film reveals his real identity going back to disclose his childhood days, like how he grew up. In the meantime, he has to find those people who are after him before they do and so with a twist the film comes to an end.
Coming from a DC film, now Ben Affleck proved he can be like any other top actors from the industry. His physique was great for the role he played. Thanks to Batman role. This is like his version of 'John Wick' or 'Jack Reacher'. Definitely we can expect a sequel here. Anna Kedrick was great in the recent time with all her films, particularly the box office wise. In this she did not get bigger role, but one of the main and in the follow-up, she might get more opportunity. The film was almost perfect for a crime-thriller. Especially the characters make the finest film of its kind. An outstanding film, so recommended for those who seek entertainment fullest.
_9/10_

**Surprisingly decent**
IMHO Ben Affleck has the ability to stink up the screen and has done so on a number of occasions, thankfully this was not one of them. The premise was good, the characters interesting and the action worked within the story. None of it felt forced which was a nice surprise. Worth a one time watch. ;)

Pretty iconic.
Not sure how I hadn't logged this until now, given it's a film I watched quite a bit growing up due to it being my mum's favourite movie. Better late than never! 'Dirty Dancing' is entertaining - cheesy, but entertaining. What helps is the ace soundtrack, which culminates with the classic '(I've Had) The Time of My Life' scene.
The film flies through its 100-minute run time and features super chemistry between leads Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey, two who give strong performances. Jerry Orbach (Just me confusing him with Jonathan Hyde? Probably.) is good too. As you'd expect, the dance numbers are all on point as well.
I've never checked out the 2004 prequel, 'Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights'. It's next up, though high hopes I do not hold - but we'll see.

An ok movie. A lot of cheesy parts that I didn't like. I did like the dancing and the love story. I guess it was better at that time.

A pretty simplistic film with a plot that's more of an excuse to show dance scenes and an extremely surface level handling of the issues of gender and class that it raises, but it's pretty cute and also I'm bisexual so I like it anyway.

Entertaining hit with lush Appalachian locations, but the writing doesn't respect the intelligence of the viewer
RELEASED IN 1987 and directed by Emile Ardolino, "Dirty Dancing" stars Patrick Swayze as Johnny Castle, a working-class dance instructor at a mountain resort in the Catskills in 1963. Jennifer Grey costars as "Baby," the 17-year-old daughter of an affluent Jewish doctor vacationing at the resort. She takes the place of Johnny's dance partner after his partner gets pregnant, albeit not by Johnny. Baby naturally develops a crush.
This was the hit romantic drama of 1987, but it actually didn’t make as much at the domestic box office compared to the other two dance flicks of the 80s: “Flashdance” (1983) made $95 million and “Footloose” (1984) $80 million while “Dirty Dancing” brought it $64 million. The two main cast members are a highlight. Swayze was in his prime and Jennifer Grey cute & nimble, like a fawn. In reality Grey was 26 years-old during filming, although she passes for late teens pretty well. Swayze, however, was 34 and looked it, albeit trim and fit.
The lush Appalachian locations are outstanding and the story keeps your attention but you'll roll your eyes at the idiotic misunderstanding where Baby's father assumes Johnny's the one who got his partner pregnant and, for some strange reason, no one sets him straight. Not to mention, the characters always say the wrong thing at the wrong time, which perpetuates the misunderstanding. Also, the sexual union of Johnny & Baby is both premature and unbelievable in light of the time period, Baby's age (17 years-old) and her upbringing. Frankie Avalon was once asked about his early 60’s "Beach" movies if the male-female relationships were as "squeaky clean" as portrayed and he answered (paraphrasing): "As a teen back then 'going all the way' wasn't even considered an option." The obvious exception would be disreputable kids from the "other side of the tracks."
Moreover, the fact that Johnny is having sex with the doctor's daughter, a minor at that, can't win any points in his favor. Hence, even without the misunderstanding there's little reason for the father to warm up to Johnny. So why does the doctor show respect for Johnny at the end, a dude who's fornicating with his under-aged daughter and is clearly much older than her as well, although it could be argued that he’s naïve and doesn’t necessarily know they’re having sex already. Flaws like these smack of lazy writing and are offensive to anyone with an ounce of intelligence.
If you can look past these problems, however, the film is entertaining. The dance sequences shown in the staff area are akin to vertical sex with clothes on. I guess that's why it's called "Dirty Dancing," huh? Yet this is another flaw of the movie: these scenes are so amped-up and choreographed they shout to the viewer via megaphone: "This is A MOVIE; it's NOT REAL." Nonetheless, Grey's a cutie, Swayze's The Man and the beautiful Appalachian locations are a highlight, filmed at Mountain Lake Resort, Pembroke, Virginia, and Lake Lure, NC.
THE FILM RUNS 1 hour, 45 minutes. WRITER: Eleanor Bergstein.
GRADE: B-/C+

This was schmaltzy but decent and could have been a lot worse. Normally I run from this sort of film like the plague but Patrick Swayze's recent death and me greatly enjoying 'Point Break' recently made me want to check out another one of his finest roles ('Ghost' and 'Road House' will have to wait, methinks.). When I got my first DJ-ing job, working the night shift at the now-defunct K-102 FM in Woodstock as a teenager, I often received calls asking for any of the three hit songs from its stellar and nostalgia-wringing soundtrack: Eric Carmen's 'Hungry Eyes', Swayze's own 'She's Like the Wind' or the Oscar-winning 'The Time of My Life' by Bill Medley and Jennifer Warnes. It was interesting now, almost three decades later, finally seeing the music I had played on the airwaves eon before now shown in some sort of cinematic context.
It was OK to see as a tribute to Swayze's craft (he was trained in classic ballet as well as in acting) but I'm left with no interest whatsoever in either the sequel or remake, unless as a special gift for my lady, Tammy.

True, this isn't the most original of concepts and we have oft seen similar styles of treatment of these ancient rivalries, but Kate Beckinsale's lithe and deadly "Selene" and Michael Sheen's menacing "Lucian" are engaging enough in this tale of vampires v werewolves. Scott Speedman provides the eye candy (but very little else) as the hapless human "Michael" whom she rescues only to discover that he might prove a lot more important than either of them realise, and Bill Nighy is superbly over the top as the recently raised from his slumbers "Viktor" who really did fancy a (very) long lie in. Clad in leather and scurrying from place to place amidst the darkened environments the breadth of the city, the two must avoid capture and find a way to thwart ambitions that will re-enliven the timeless conflict between the two warring species. The combat scenes are heavily choreographed and do repeat themselves quite often and least said about Shane Brolly's weakly portrayed "Kraven" the better, but I did enjoy this.

**Overall : Action, horror, monsters, guns, striking practical effects, spectacular creature designs, and a surprisingly proven and fantastic cast led by Kate Beckinsale all get mashed together to create one of the best creature features there is!**
Underworld brings a new twist to the vampire and werewolf genre by pitting them against each other as they vie for control of the criminal underworld ruled by nightmarish creatures. It's hard to believe the budget for this film is relatively small because it doesn't feel limited in any way. The action and fight sequences are superb, with Kate Beckinsale proving herself an unstoppable action heroine for the first time with her prior career consisting of primarily romcoms. The creature design, special effects, sets, cinematography, and even the rest of the cast are all top-notch. Len Wiseman found a way to take a small budget and produce a big-budget genre-blending masterstroke that any action or horror fan is sure to love.

Movies like _Underworld_ just don't end up with the calibre of actor that _Underworld_ has under normal circumstances. Somehow, _Underworld_ did though, and yes, it's very much a product of that early '00s industrial inspired age, but it is a solid, solid take on some realistic(ish) aspects of supernatural monster mythos.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

Happy Death Day takes the classic slasher formula and flips it into a fun, self-aware time-loop mystery. The plot isn't overly deep, but it works because of its energy and pacing. The directing keeps things engaging, balancing horror, comedy, and lighthearted moments without feeling forced. While the cinematography isn't groundbreaking, it effectively builds tension when needed and plays well with the repeating-day concept. The script leans into humor and character-driven moments more than hardcore horror, which might not work for everyone but gives the movie its own identity.
Jessica Rothe is the heart of the film, bringing charisma, comedic timing, and emotional range to her role, making it far more enjoyable than it would have been otherwise. The supporting cast does their job, but it's really her show. The score is serviceable, nothing too memorable, but it complements the film’s shifting tones well. Overall, it's a fun, easy-to-watch horror-comedy that doesn’t take itself too seriously. If you go in expecting a light, entertaining ride rather than a deep horror experience, it delivers exactly that.

**Blumhouse killed it with this one! 😜**
If Groundhog's Day and Scream had a baby, it would be this entertaining gem of a movie! I went in with low expectations and was so pleasantly surprised and highly entertained. Jessica Rothe's acting is delightful, taking the typical mean girl trope and filling it with soul and charm. In a world of remakes and reboots, Happy Death Day shines with a fun plot and great acting. Definitely worth a watch.

Full review: https://www.tinakakadelis.com/beyond-the-cinerama-dome/2021/12/28/kill-me-baby-one-morenbsptime-happy-death-day-review
_Happy Death Day_ works because Rothe is a charismatic lead, invoking the scream queen performances of yesteryear. Most of the other characters are far more secondary, so the burden falls on Rothe to bring life to a grounding role. As the lead, Tree needs to be intriguing enough for the audience to put up with the repetitive nature of the genre, but also pliable enough to allow her character to grow. Her relationship with Carter is particularly interesting because it has to both progress over the course of one day for Carter (who forgets everything as the day resets) and vary for Tree over the many different versions of the one day she lives through. Their relationship must be both a blank slate and feel as though the needle has moved forward at the end of each repeated day. Broussard and Rothe are able to sell it completely from the first time Tree wakes up confused in Carter’s bed.

Happy Death Day is surprisingly great fun. It doesn't have a reason to exist other than to tell a slasher film in the Groundhog Day formula, but it's funny when it wants to be, creepy when it wants to be, and Jessica Rothe has got great screen presence. The film could have benefitted from more creative kills (and an R rating), but for a one or two time watch, Happy Death Day is sure to entertain.

If _Mean Girls_ and _Groundhog Day_ had a baby... and then that baby stabbed you... H_appy Death Day_ is an imperfect movie that I had **such** a good time with. I was on board ever since I first saw the trailer, and though it won't be making my top 5 or anything, I definitely was not disappointed.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

**It doesn't matter if it's Stanley Kubrick's best or worst. It's a movie that makes you think.**
Stanley Kubrick is one of those filmmakers who didn't make a lot of films. Over the course of his forty-year career, he only made thirteen feature films. Very little... However, if we look closely, almost all of them are familiar and immediately entered the pantheon of cinema. They are not perfect films, nor was Kubrick perfect no matter how methodical he was, and there are films of his that are unpalatable (I've already written that in some of them). But each of them, for its reasons, is its own, a very different work. In this film, he makes a case study around desire, sexuality and how we, individually or as a couple, deal with it.
The script follows a doctor and his wife. An apparently happy couple who, after a party where they both flirted with other people (without consequences), have a fight where she, perhaps to take away his self-confidence, confesses that she wanted to have another man, some time ago. The revelation leaves the doctor speechless. That night, he doesn't seem to know what he wants: he desires other women, but refuses their advances. But when a pianist friend tells him about a strange party, full of beauties, where he has to play blindfolded, he wants to see it up close. Yes, the party was a gigantic chic orgy, with touches of unholy religious ritual to accentuate the sense of sin and lust. Of course, the unwary guy ends up being discovered and unmasked… and from there, the film becomes denser, with the character increasingly afraid of what might happen to him.
The film makes us think a lot about sexuality, monogamy, the importance we give to marital fidelity. I don't know what it was like in 1999, but today it's common to see couples in open relationships, or relatively discreet saunas and swing clubs that throw liberal parties with some regularity. There is still a universe apart – private parties, organized by social networks and for guests only – and it is true that the rich and famous are much more demanding with the reservation of their intimacy, especially when they do naughty things. But what the film proposes to us is, not so much the refusal of monogamy, but that we think about the way we give up all other sexual partners when we really fall in love. The notion of personal sacrifice runs through the entire film (a woman who gives up an erotic fantasy for love, another who proposes to die in order to save an innocent, a man who refuses sex because he is married) and indicates that the best bonds we create in life involve choices and sacrifices in exchange for something greater. In fact, to be happy in a marriage, you need to keep your eyes wide shut to temptations.
With a very good and well written story, the film develops the characters very well and allows us to get to know them. For that, the film doesn't mind taking a slower pace that can leave some audiences exasperated. Decisive was the choice of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman for the main roles. At the time, they were Hollywood's pretty couple, and there's no doubt that Kubrick knew how to exploit their enormous personal and intimate chemistry, transporting it to the characters and the film. In fact, this may not be Kubrick's best film (that's relative!) but, for me, it's Cruise's best film so far.
Technically, the film has many positives. Kubrick gave an almost maniacal attention to detail and took his time filming. And we can see how each scene was shot in a detailed way, with the camera moving precisely, cuts surgically made, very long and very well edited scenes, taking advantage of the excellent cinematography and sets (where, of course, the mansion of the party stands out). Even more important is the way the director was able to work with the environment and the tension, growing and almost palpable. There is a lot of nudity in this film, including frontal nudity (Kidman herself did scenes where she is practically naked) and some sex scenes that, if not explicit, are very visual. Even so, the film is not, surprisingly, very erotic. I think the director didn't want sex to distract us or cut that tension he was looking for. As for the sound and soundtrack, I think it does its job well, but I didn't find it particularly remarkable.

Speed is one of those movies that’s just pure adrenaline from start to finish. Directed by Jan de Bont and starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, it’s a high-energy action film that knows exactly what it wants to be and delivers on every front. The concept is as intense as it gets, and the execution keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole way through.
Keanu Reeves is solid as Jack Traven, the quick-thinking LAPD officer, and Sandra Bullock’s charm as Annie brings some heart and humor to the chaos. The chemistry between them is great, and it’s fun to watch their dynamic unfold under pressure. Dennis Hopper as the villain is wonderfully over-the-top, adding just the right amount of menace to the mix.
The action sequences are incredible, especially given the tight, confined setting of a moving bus. The stunts and pacing keep the tension high, and even the more ridiculous moments just add to the fun. Sure, some parts feel exaggerated or a bit far-fetched, but that’s what makes it so enjoyable. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, and that works perfectly.
What really stands out is how the film never slows down (pun intended). From start to finish, it’s a non-stop thrill ride that’s incredibly entertaining. Speed is exciting, fun, and totally worth a rewatch, even decades later. It’s a classic that still holds up!

For my money, this is Keanu Reeves' best (and hottest) performance. He is "Jack", an LAPD officer who finds himself embroiled in a bus-hostage situation. Not any ordinary kind of scenario, though - the bus is atop a bomb that will detonate if it slows below 50mph. He must track down the bus and figure out a way of ensuring, in a gridlocked and pedestrian-riddled LA, how to make sure it doesn't explode and how to evacuate the passengers. Luckily for him, Sandra Bullock ("Annie") is on board so perhaps he has a fighting chance? We know from the start that it's explosive expert Dennis Hopper pulling all the strings - boy has he got a grudge - so the rest of LAPD (and his partner Jeff Daniels) have to try and track him down. Mark Mancina's score and some really intense action photography keep this gripping drama racing along really well with loads of (ok, pretty implausible) engineering acrobatics. The dynamic between Bullock and Reeves is effective, she plays her role really entertainingly too as it turns out the bus has it's fair share of quirky passengers too, and she ends up doing all the driving (without a driving licence!). Almost 30 years on, it hasn't really dated at all - indeed, there is an authenticity to the whole production that helps keep it enthralling all the way to an ending that sustains momentum really well.

_**Get off the bus!**_
A SWAT officer in Los Angeles (Keanu Reeves) tries to save the lives of people on a bus from a mad bomber (Dennis Hopper) who has the vehicle rigged to blow up if it goes under 50 MPH. Sandra Bullock plays a passenger on the bus while Jeff Daniels is on hand as another SWAT officer.
"Speed" (1994) is a disaster/action movie that delivers the goods as a thrilling popcorn flick. While it’s not great like “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1991) it’s arguably on par with “Under Siege 2: Dark Territory” (1995).
Although a top-of-the-line production, it lacks the human interest of “Terminator 2” and “Runaway Train” (1985) and the story is unbelievably contrived. But, if you can roll with it, it’s a dynamic blockbuster, just kinda forgettable in the grand scheme of things.
The film runs 1 hour, 55 minutes, and was shot in the greater Los Angeles area, including Mojave Airport.
GRADE: B-

Entertaining action-thriller that made both Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock stars. All of the scenes on the bus were great and while the finale was fine, the third act in of itself was contrived. No reason for Annie to be at the scene of the ransom drop; heck, one can argue Jack shouldn't have been there either since they know what the bomber looks like. Still, plenty of fun and seemed like Hopper was having a great time as a cackling, maniacal villain. **3.75/5**

This one is my favorite out of the series. Afro circus afro circus afro polka dot polka dot polka dot.... I just love this movie. Laugh all the time.