**Wakanda Forever was an earnest film that tackled some tough themes and honored its hero well but got bogged down introducing vast new worlds and complicated characters.**
Wakanda Forever left me with mixed emotions. The respect and love paid to the legacy of Chadwick Boseman were heartfelt, meaningful, and sincere. The movie wisely grappled with the aftermath of T’Challa’s passing on his family and nation. This subject matter created excellent opportunities to dive deeper into characters like Shuri, Nakia, and even M’Baku. Instead, Wakanda Forever primarily served as a vehicle to introduce Namor and Talokan. The film rightfully embraced a more somber tone as it dealt with themes of loss and legacy, but the mournful spirit caused the plot to sag and drag along throughout most of the runtime. Winston Duke offers the little levity the movie had. The cast delivered exceptionally, with Angela Bassett’s performance as the true standout. I liked the movie, but the melancholy approach made it more difficult to really enjoy, and the introduction of Namor and his threat to Wakanda chewed up so much of the story that it was difficult to bring closure to characters struggling with loss and heartbreak satisfyingly.

Six years after her first encounter with the creatures from "Wonderland", the feisty young "Alice" (Mia Wasikowska) finds herself outmanoeuvred by her scheming ex "Hamish" (Leo Bill) and disappointed with her mother (Lindsay Duncan) so a bit at a loss! What's left to do but follow a bug through a mirror above the fireplace back into a realm where she quickly discovers that the "Mad Hatter" (Johnny Depp) is in a bad way. He's missing his family who have long since died, and so she decides to get hold of a time-travel enabling "Chronosphere" and go back in time to retro-fix this disaster. Of course it's not going to be a simple operation, especially as the two royal sisters "Iracebeth" (Helena Bonham Carter) and "Mirana" (Anne Hathaway) are at loggerheads after their father (Richard Armitage) decided to opt for his younger daughter to succeed him. To be fair, the irascible "Irecebeth" might not have been his best choice - but she's not taking this lying down, and soon their magical kingdom is rife with strife. Can the ingenious "Alice" manage to fix things? It's not really the strongest of stories, this one, and with Depp largely side-lined (or bed-ridden) it's left to the CGI to do most of the storytelling. It does look great this - à la "The Golden Compass" (2007), with loads of stunning visuals and imagination let loose, but the plot vacillates between the adventure and the sentimental all too weakly. Wasikowska turns in quite an amiable effort and HBC does try to imbue her character with a bit of tea-time menace, but neither really have enough to work with as the sibling rivalry elements are distinctly an rather predictably undercooked. It's all perfectly watchable on a big screen - colourful and lively, but it's just too "Alice Goes to Narnia".

I like sequels when the characters come into there own. Better then the 1st.

A step down from the 2010 film, but 'Alice Through the Looking Glass' is a solid film nonetheless.
I enjoyed seeing this plot, largely about time, play out. The film is CGI heavy, but does look great for the vast majority. The cast are good, with Mia Wasikowska leading well and surrounded by the likes of Johnny Depp, Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen.
I do think the film could've been slightly shorter, with better pacing and less emphasis on the 'real world' stuff featuring Alice. The looking glass entry isn't as interesting/magical as the rabbit hole, also.
Far superior to the 1998 adaptation of this 1871 Lewis Carroll novel, that's for certain.

**Alice returns to the wonderland for a new adventure.**
Based on the nearly 150 years old children's book, and a sequel to the 2010 film. Its quite a long gap for a follow up film, but the original cast has returned and directed by 'The Muppets' famed filmmaker. So, I was not expecting it since I considered the first film an average. All I wanted was a normal live-action 'Alice in Wonderland' films, but I disliked this weird make-ups and large head characters. In that perspective, this one was much better. Still, this is not the best, but definitely a lot better than the previous one.
A simple adventure story with nice graphics and performances. The Alice returns to the Wonderland for a new adventure where she has to cross the layers of the present, past and future. So in one word, this is a time travel theme in the fantasy genre. Mia Wasikowska ruled it, she was everywhere. She overran all other characters and takes the toughest challenge to achieve impossible.
Nearly a two hour journey into wonderland might make happy for little kids. Because it did not look like a normal fairytale, but very modern. This is not the Disney's best film, so I don't think there will be any more sequel. I want it to be rebooted, but not any time soon, at least a decade of gap needed. So I hope they won't rush and ruin this classic tale like three 'Spiderman' reboots in less than 20 years. Meantime, this film is okay for watching once, though I'm not in favour to recommend it to anybody except little children.
_6/10_

This is the worst movie I've seen since Freddy Got Fingered. So much worse than even I was expecting, that despite being a massive fan of Sookie from Gilmore Girls, I can no longer watch McCarthy without nauseating flashbacks of this movie. If you're any level of nerd and fan of this franchise, this will feel like the movie equivalent of meangirls locking you in your gym locker and cackling at you for being a Ghostbusters fan.
Devoid of inspiration, creative premise, script polishing with anything other than sewage, or even the simple courtesy of regard for the VAST fanbase of this iconic franchise, this colostomy bag rupture of a movie was SO heavy-handed and awkward, it made me physically squirm in discomfort, and unable to watch more than five minutes at a time without pausing to let the nausea abate. You could be forgiven for thinking this must be a porn parody of Ghostbusters 1, if it wasn't for the conspicuous lack of anything attractive to look at. I can honestly say without a shred of doubt that I would rather be forced to watch Serbian Movie with my eyes taped open, than have to sit through any part of this crime against the Ghostbusters franchise, ever again.

First things first, the following is worth noting: I have no attachment to the 1984 film, nor do I particularly like it; I rated it and its sequel 2½*. I'm not saying it's overrated or anything, I just personally don't enjoy it that's all.
With that said, I'd class 2016's 'Ghostbusters' better than the original. However, as you tell by my rating, that's not me saying this is a good film. I don't believe it is. It's incredibly slow paced, with a very forgettable and untidy plot. It felt longer than a 116 minute run time, that's for sure.
It's not all bad, though. I actually rate the casting. Melissa McCarthy can be hit-and-miss, but this is one of her more solid performances. Kristen Wiig, great in 'Bridesmaids' alongside McCarthy, is a decent performer too. Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon are alright, while Chris Hemsworth is pretty amusing.
I, despite not being a fan of it, still enjoyed the callbacks to the '84 film; as well as the use of the superb theme song. As for the special effects, they look good but none of the ghosts stick in my memory; both visually, but also in terms of the story. It would've been nice to have a standout ghost. Likewise with the film's villain, who is ridiculously plain.
In conclusion, it does positive things but there are certainly negatives. All in all, I think the latter just outweighs the former unfortunately. 3*.

I didn't watch this for quite a while because I heard so many bad things about it. "What do they know?" I thought to myself. I figured _Ghostbusters_ had already had a bad sequel I sort of enjoyed, a bad remake should be sort of enjoyable too. Besides, you just **know** that so many of the complaints were exclusively because the cast had been of the dreaded ~~fEmaLe VeRsiOn~~ variety. But I just watched it, and... Oh man you guys, this really did suck. I'm devastated.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

As a male nerd who grew up in the 1980's watching both original movies and the cartoon, running around with my toy proton pack and catching imaginary ghosts in my basement, I should be of the demographic complaining about how this ruins my childhood or that a cast of all women is just a stunt in the name of political correctness, or whatever their issue is. But the truth is, I REALLY enjoyed this movie.
The four female leads were absolutely hilarious--especially Kate McKinnon who steals every scene she is in. The other three characters have more growth, more of a story arc, and are more fleshed out as people in general. But McKinnon makes the most out of the available material and creates a very fun and memorable character.
The comedy of the 2016 version, while equally effective, is completely different from the dry humor of the original. The absence of Dan Aykroyd's and Harold Ramis's ludicrously funny lines delivered with a straight face, and the deadpan humor of Bill Murray has been switched out with a more over-the-top and in-your-face style of humor. It's not as subtle. Ghostbusters (1984) made me chuckle; Ghostbusters (2016) made me laugh out loud.
While a lot of the original's comedy came from the ghosts themselves, i.e. that they're funny instead of legitimately scary, the new version reverses that. There is some very creepy imagery involving things like old timey parade balloons, ghosts pushing against mirrors, and other things that seemed inspired by American Horror Story. Plus, there were some good jump scares, boo moments, that actually caught me off guard.
Much like a guitar amp out of Spinal Tap, this film turns both the scares and the comedy up to 11 with great results.
I haven't had this much fun at a movie in a long time. The trailer is NOT a valid way to judge this film. The trailer seemed to splice together all the ineffective moments and jokes of the film. But those were the exceptions and not the rule. The rule here is fun, entertainment, laughs, and the occasional scare. When the film works, it works remarkably.
The only real misstep was Chris Hemsworth's character. While the gender role reversal of the hot blonde ditz secretary was brilliant and long overdue in a mainstream summer movie, he was just too dumb to be believable. The character of Kevin belonged in a cartoon and not a legitimate movie.
The best line in the movie references Jaws and Annie Potts' cameo made me cheer.
However...
If you've already decided you hate this movie without even seeing it, you probably won't like it. That's how these things usually work. But, if you have an open mind and are reserving judgement, I suggest you see it. You will be pleasantly surprised.

This movie is a disaster. The casting is way off. The special effects are mediocre. The story is merely a retread from the original... and they shoot the original logo in the crotch. There is nothing good about this production. What a waste of a perfectly good franchise.

This movie is horrible. It plays like an overly long SNL sketch. The only saving grace is that this lost so much money that there will not be a sequel. Unfortunately for the fans, this means that the franchise is likely dead in the water for a long time.

This movie was a huge disappointment! The only positive thing I can say about it is that the special effects where not half bad. The movie itself was childish, unfunny, unintelligent and generally really bad.
Some reviews giving this movie 9 or 10 stars (which is just ludicrous) are saying that people cannot handle the feminism in the movie. What feminism? Replacing the original actors with women is not feminism as far as I am concerned and anyway, if you care about such things should it not have been two women and two men to be politically correct? Also, the supposedly intelligent women in this movie behave in a typical old-fashioned Hollywood stereotype of women way. They are mostly downright silly. If I were a feminist I would actually have been insulted by this movie.
Then we have the male clerk that is dummer than a piece of rock. If someone had stacked four supposedly intelligent men and a single blond bimbo that is totally devoid of any trace of intelligence together in a movie the social justice warriors would have cried foul so loud that you could hear it across the planet. But since it is four women and a stupid male it is okay (not really). It is even feminism according to some people. What a load of bollocks.
There is actually a story in the movie although it is well hidden under the silly jokes and silly behavior. It is paper thin and rather silly in itself but it could have worked if the rest of the movie was up to snuff but sadly it is not.
As I wrote above the only good thing about this movie is the special effects. The few scenes that I actually enjoyed was during the big shoot out at the end which had some cool moments. I especially liked when Jillian pulls a pair of pistols out of her Ghostbuster suit and goes on a ghost killing spray.
Apart from that this movie is best forgotten.

**The ghosts are real and the scientists are hunting them down!**
First of all I am not a fan of the original film, but I enjoyed watching them. So I anticipated this film for the updates to deliver what I'm looking for, including some good jokes, but I found it an average film. I am very interested to have the women's version of hit the films and vice versa, but there are not many films in this category. All I wanted was 'The Expendables', but they made this one. I think it was a great idea, though the execution was really impressive.
The story was okay type, they kept it very simple. No big developments, except two main characters. But all the four women were good, along with Chris Hemsworth as a worthy sidekick. The director whose favourite casting actress, Melissa McCarthy's fourth film with him in four years and he did his job well, but the screenplay lets the film down.
There's no major comparison with the original, because this is a reboot and obviously has similar appeal from visual to comedies. Except they talk too much science thing because of todays advanced science. The disappointments are the ghosts, the film did not give preference for them to show their atrocities. I mean the perspective was always from the women gang who fights them. Definitely a one time watchable film, for its decent graphics, performances and some good comedies.
_6/10_

A SCREEN ZEALOTS REVIEW www.screenzealots.com
There’s an arbitrary sense of nostalgia that unfairly permeates audience perceptions of the new female-centric “Ghostbusters” reboot. I love the original 1984 film too; I wore out my VHS cassette when I was a kid and I’ve probably seen the movie dozens of times, including special theatrical re-releases and anniversary screenings. It’s almost as if all of this animosity is seen as a badge of honor for ‘serious movie fans.’
All of this badmouthing is truly unwarranted, especially if you actually go back and rewatch the original. Sure, the movie has comedy legend Bill Murray, the hilarious Rick Moranis, and memorable performances from Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver and Dan Aykroyd. It introduced us to the characters we all still love decades later, and made lines like “tell him about the Twinkie” a permanent part of movie nerd vocabulary. But to all the haters I say this: you are being very, very unfair. The 1980s era film has a lot of boring sequences and lags quite a bit, and as is the case with many movies, sometimes our nostalgia creates pretty thick rose colored glasses. We tend to only remember the good in our childhood favorites.
Put aside your bias: the new “Ghostbusters” honors the legacy of the original, is a fun retelling of the classic story, and it does not disappoint. THIS MOVIE IS FUNNY! THIS MOVIE IS ACTUALLY GOOD!
There are a couple of minor hiccups along the way (as with most comedies, not every joke sticks, and the ghastly Missy Elliott / Fall Out Boy remake of the already awful Ray Parker Jr. song “Ghostbusters” makes an unwelcome appearance), but overall the movie is a success. At first it may feel weird to see women Ghostbusters but any skepticism will quickly fade (there’s a new generation of young girls who will undoubtedly be inspired by these characters).
When estranged childhood friends and paranormal enthusiasts Erin (Kristen Wiig) and Abby (Melissa McCarthy) reunite, sparks are rekindled and they decide to get back to their ghost chasing roots. The smartypants duo is joined by weirdo nuclear engineer Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) and subway worker Patty (Leslie Jones). When Manhattan starts to experience boatloads of specter activity, the friends get started on some good old fashioned poltergeist hunting.
A big part of why this movie works is the comedic talent of these women; their chemistry is evident and they play well off each other, and the positive themes of loyalty and friendship never once feel fake. All of the actors are proficient at physical comedy and all have impeccable timing. This movie is very funny and the jokes had (and kept) me laughing from the beginning (there’s a particularly hilarious sequence at a heavy metal concert that’s worth the price of admission).
Rounding out the amusing performances is Chris Hemsworth as Kevin, a completely clueless stud muffin who is hired as the women’s receptionist solely based on his beefcake good looks. This feminist spin on the dumb secretary stereotype is exactly the type of lampoon I was hoping for here. In fact, the film doesn’t shy away from all of the lady haters either: there are lots of self-referential bits that directly address all of the critics (my favorite being Holtzmann’s ‘One of the Boys‘ t-shirt). Girl power!
Fans of the original will also appreciate several in-jokes and references, and there’s a long line of fun cameos (which I won’t spoil here: just keep your eyes open and be sure to stay through the end credits)! The special effects have been given a serious upgrade as well: these ghosts look real, feel real, and are appropriately scary-yet-funny. When the ladies first fired up their proton packs, I began cheering internally.
“Ghostbusters” is exactly what a summer movie is supposed to be. It’s big in scope, it’s full of hearty laughs, it’s filled with terrific performances from all of the leads, it’s stuffed with stunning special effects, and it’s something the entire family can enjoy. All of you naysayers really need to lighten up because this is a really, really fun movie.
**A SCREEN ZEALOTS REVIEW www.screenzealots.com**

Unfortunately this has become because of political correctness and its backlash almost impossible to rate objectively. In the 2016 North American wish to either redo every successful film ever made and present every conceivable variant in the process, for what could be deemed the lack of any possible originality of ideas, I still tried to enter this with an open mind, and see this as if the two films from the 80's (which I enjoyed very much the one time I saw each of them) had never existed. I should state I saw this in 3D (which I hardly ever do), with my lady and our respective sons.
I felt that it was quite funny and that the special effects were excellent. Next to 'Avatar', the use of 3D was the best I have ever seen. It's a popcorn flick well-worth seeing. Though I haven't seen any other movies by Feig or starring McCarthy, it made me want to go back and give them a shot at some time in the near future. There was something for everyone--both my lady and I enjoyed it very much--and the boys, three and thirteen years-old respectively, loved it as well. Give it a shot.

I was determined to see this movie on opening day. Female cast, Paul Feig (a Michiganian who included a Michigan line in the film), a couple fistfuls of ridiculousity on social media. When the movie started, I was one-eyeing the screen. Waiting for it. Oh oh. Fart joke. Oh oh. Kristen Wiig still can't make her eyes look interested. Then Charles Dance shows up with his serious comic tongue stuck in his cheek to admonish Prof. Gilbert that if she is serious about tenure, she needs to find a more prestigious university recommendation. "More prestigious? Than Princeton?" Now I know the deadpan eye comic genius of Wiig, too. From that point on, I was in love with the story. Katie Dippold cowrote the film. She has a bit part as the real estate agent showing the team the 1984 movie's fire station to rent. I want more of her screenwriting. The dialogue is witty, sharp, real. While I liked the 1984 Ghostbusters, it's a buddy movie. Dudes in the treehouse with no girls allowed spelled wrong nailed to the door. Smug, chirpy, guybonics. Venkman electrocuting rivals in the lab: using paranormal research to get dates. Annie Potts drooling over Spengler. Sigourney Weaver in a diaphanous dress, draped on a parapet waiting for the Gatekeeper. The sore spots in 1984 are sprayed away in 2016 without gender disrespect. Gilbert gets to drool over the pretty doofus administrative assistant. When you see this movie, watch all the credits. Chris Hemsworth is a clearly confident actor - he dives pelvis-first into the Kevin role, and it's hilarious. I'm still searching for the creator of the titles and end credits. Excellent art. The poster? Not so much. Hemsworth needs to be behind the four leads. Geez. Casting hit a lick with Kate McKinnon as Holzmann. She is fantastic bringing Harold Ramis' genius back to life. Leslie Jones as Patty: so good, and she has some of the juiciest lines, delivered with haute sass. There are really well-placed cameos by 1984's cast, including birthing one of the movie's best lines "safety lights are for dudes." 2016 Ghostbusters is a great fun movie, and I'll watch it more than once again. One of the brilliant visuals that I was thrilled with - the stream from the proton packs tied up the ghosts. Wrapped, pinned, contained lassoed. Genius analogy for what to do with obsolete stereotype. There's a lassoed line in the film while the Ghostbusters are reading the internet reaction to their first catch. "Ain't no bitches gonna catch no ghosts." Yeah. Watch this.

Filmmaker Paul Feig's **Ghostbusters** reboot pretty much followed the characteristic aspects of his previous films ("Bridesmaids", "The Heat", "Spy") all incorporating a self-awareness of female-oriented friendship and the estrogen-driven escapades rooted in inspired goofiness. So given this familiar foundation of Feig's big screen blueprint one would expect that his creative input into the continued Ghostbusters franchise for the millennium moviegoers would result in the heralded hype his film project is now enjoying at large. Sure, the feminine-charged **Ghostbusters** seemed like a radical concept and would obviously trigger the nostalgic sentiments (and comparisons) of the classic 80's comedy spearheaded by beloved on-screen paranormal hucksters Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson. Nevertheless, singer Ray Parker Jr.'s lyrical catchphrase "Who you gonna call?" within the Ghostbusters theme song needs to be addressed accordingly. The answer: the handlers behind the original **Ghostbusters** film that could uplift the disjointed high jinks and synthetic silliness of Feig's current comedic ghostly she-power schlockfest.
It is only natural that **Ghostbusters** had high expectations for Sony Pictures to perform well given the aggressive marketing tactics, early release of the Ghostbusters movie trailer (which was heavily panned online) and the aforementioned cinematic legacy of the original film's fanatical following and reputation. However, this third installation of **Ghostbusters** feels curiously flat and strained in its stillborn witticism. The creep factor borders on campy and cheesy (although this effectively worked for Ivan Reitman's 32-year old spook-ridden farce in the eighties) for which in today's cinematic circle is inexcusable due to the edgier and challenging special effects that could have played up the whimsy and wonderment of this breezy, bubble-gum colored romp with seemingly low-grade spark and sizzle.
Feig's interpretation of the **Ghostbusters** universe could have been fresh and favorable especially with the colorful casting of his capable four female principals in the Emmy-winning and Oscar-nominated Melissa McCarthy along with Saturday Night Live personalities Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones. Unfortunately for these noted funny ladies they were saddled (or slimmed if you will) by a transparent script almost as invisible as the pesky ghosts they are trying to pacify. The recycled by-the-numbers hilarity and hysteria does not make this brand of ghost-busting quite distinguishing. Chemistry-wise, the Ghostbuster gals seem to revel in the collective merry-minded mischievousness and genuinely try to bring energy and outrageous antics to this flaccid frightfest. Still, the mixture of Ghostbusters' gooey gumption with a dash of egghead feisty femininity never seems to translate into anything beyond the tired gimmick of promoting another excuse to tap into yesteryear's profitable fun and frolic that made the wise-cracking Murray and his klutzy cohorts so amusing and welcomed in their rollicking ghostly gem from the Reagan-era.
Quite frankly the notion that **Ghostbusters** is unfairly being knocked for its misogynistic overtones fueled by bias Internet-based fanboys not accepting that nerdy womanly scientists cannot fill the shoes of their revered male counterparts from the previous two predecessors is somewhat misleading. Sure, the decision to cast an all-female **Ghostbusters** team turned some curious heads but for the most part many thought this to be rather intriguing and experimental. The actual disdain can be pinpointed to the fact that Feig's flimsy boo-spewing fable is grounded in cliched and forced chuckles, weak-kneed jokes and gags, lazy writing and uninspired visual neon lighting techniques that look like a cheapened explosion from a vintage late 70's New York discotheque.
Unfortunately, **Ghostbusters** wallows in mediocrity and fails to capture the acquired giddiness and imagination so pronounced in the prior entertaining installments. Even if the original actors in Murray, Aykroyd, the late Ramis and Hudson had decided to reprise their roles under Feig's problematic production the results would be the same--an aimless reboot without any definitive bite or backbone for a cobbled comedy that is slight and stretched thin to its toothless core. Amazingly, **Ghostbusters** cannot decide if it should remain faithful to its humble roots (it does help trivially that iconic Ghostbuster notables make scattered cameos--sans Rick Moranis--including that glorified scene-stealer in the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man as well as hot dog gulper Slimer) or venture off into something resembling its own goofy identity and distinction. Either way the third time around simply meanders in over-produced, noisy emptiness.
The so-called plot in **Ghostbusters** focuses on college professor Erin Gilbert (Wiig presumably in the Murray/Dr. Peter Venkman role) and her fascination with ghost activities that end up costing her an academic career in the process. Specifically, Erin's controversial book that she wrote along with co-author Abby Yates (McCarthy) served as the basis for her firing. Abby's obsession with ghosts still has her invested with this spirit phenomenon that she researches defiantly with her kooky associate Jillian Holtzman (McKinnon) in tow. Eventually, it would take the trio's status of joblessness (not to mention a run-in with a slim-spewing ghost that loves soaking humans with its sticky green goo) to collaborate on going into business as paranormal exterminators out to showcase their expertise in "busting ghosts".
In the meanwhile, there is something brewing in the twisted mind of supernatural-loving freak Rowan North (Neil Casey). After all, he is the lost soul responsible for unleashing the onslaught of riff-raffish apparitions upon New York City courtesy of his miserable, lonely existence. Now it is up to Erin, Abby and Jillian to eliminate Rowan's sinister agenda and eradicate the spooky pests that he has manipulated to cause the city-wide panic. As Internet sensational darlings, the Ghostbusters are committed to step up to the plate as the sassy saviors they were meant to be since going into the ghost-busting industry.
The later arrival of street-wise transit worker Patty Tolan (Jones) completes the Ghostbusters' quartet. Patty, whose run in with one of the slimy ghosts in the subway tunnel was pivotal to joining the three scientists, has something to offer the ghost-chasing brainiacs--a.) her knowledge of the city's whereabouts and b.) her funeral director uncle's hearse that serves as the official transportation for the Ghostbusters.
Overall, the third outing regarding this toothless entry **Ghostbusters** notoriously lacks the robust impishness and rapport of the male character counterparts that were devilishly drawn together and cemented by Murray's droll humor. Here, the ladies come off as bland and indifferent--at least for the Paul McCartney and John Lennon of the team in Wiig's Erin Gilbert and McCarthy's Abby Yates. McKinnon's Jillian Holtzman is the only truly spry Ghostbuster who is credible as an off-kilter genius ditz with off-the-wall likability. Some may gravitate towards Jones's stereotypical brassy black chick with the brash quips and animated overreactions. Although Jones brings in the high-wire urbanized smirks in contrast to her quieter, geekier counterparts it is cringe-worthy watching her play an over-the-top, towering, mouthy cultural exaggeration that is woefully embarrassing for the sake of this dismissive. hedonistic hoot.
Ironically it is the hunky Chris Hemsworth that fares decently as the handsome himbo Kevin, the dim-witted **Ghostbusters'** male assistant that serves as the doltish eye candy for the cerebral lasses, particularly for the smitten Erin. Another SNL alum, Cecily Strong, checks in as the menacing mouthpiece from the Mayor's office that tries to discredit the popular ghost-busting technicians as "sad, thrill-seeking women".
Feig, serving as both the film's director and co-screenwriter (along with "The Heat" scriber Katie Dippold) has no cohesive vision for the listless **Ghostbusters** and could have used some critical pointers in studying the proven anatomy of what made Reitman's nostalgic vehicle so engaging that still thrives after three decades since coming into the movie audience's consciousness. From the lame and limping laughs dipped in cartoonish crudeness (i.e. a male ghost gets a rousing jolt to his "junk" courtesy of his heroic ghost-busting detractors) to musical acts Fall Out Boy's/Missy Elliott's relentlessly unrecognizable, erratic and choppy remake of the aforementioned Parker's infectious **Ghostbusters'** theme song in this regurgitated comedy that has no excuse for catering to a lackluster rebirth while die hard and casual fans patiently waited for a festive follow-up from Murray and crew for thirty-plus years.
To randomly quote a classic **Ghostbusters'** lyrical line: "I ain't afraid of no ghosts". This may be the case but one should be very afraid of this heavy-handed banal boofest for wasting their time, anticipation and consideration.
**Ghostbusters (2016)**
Sony Pictures
1 hr. 44 mins.
Starring: Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones, Kate McKinnon, Chris Hemsworth, Neil Casey, Cecily Strong, Charles Dance, Michael Kenneth Williams, Matt Walsh, Ed Begley, Jr.
Directed and Co-Written by: Paul Feig
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: Comedy/Supernatural/Science Fiction/Action and Adventure
Critic's rating: ** stars (out of 4 stars)
--Frank Ochieng (c) 2016

"While it falls short of nailing the anarchic spirit and character chemistry of Ivan Reitman’s beloved 1984 blockbuster, Feig and his cast of game comediennes deliver enough thrills and giggles to both justify the long-in-development franchise-starter and smother the internet’s white noise of negativity..."
Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2016/7/12/ghostbusters.html

**Undoubtedly better than any Terminator movie that came afterwards.**
This movie may not be perfect and not as good as the first two Terminator films,, but it is a fun watch (maybe as a guilty pleasure).
The acting ist good. Christian Bale as John Connor is as best as it gets. Sam Worthington does, as always, a decent Job as the lead character.
I liked the production desing. One could wish that it should have gone in that or this direction, but overall they did a good job.
The cameo of Arnie as a CGI-character and a fresh T800 was enjoable and fun.
People gave it a lot of flaming back in the days - but, hey - it's at least as good as the 3rd movie and it's definitely better than anything that came afterwards, at least regarding story and characters.

So... this was awful. It was just kind of pointless, but at least (unlike the new ones that seem to want to destroy the Terminator franchise) it fit into the series. So, you know, it COULD have been worse. At least Salvation seems like a continuation of the Terminator movies.
That's about the best thing that could be said about it.
Bale really stinks it up, but then again, it's an MCG film and he really doesn't know how to handle things. He splices it together, scene by scene, with no uniformity or any real transitions to lead the viewer through the story, and does so with a convoluted plot that does, kind of, make a little bit of sense... kind of.
The John Connor scenes are terrible, the everything scenes are really terrible, and you only have one or two moments that actually feel like they are coming from a Terminator movie and not a second rate clone.

_**Wall-to-wall post-apocalyptic action needed more time to breathe**_
The first couple of Terminator films are easily two of the greatest sci-fi/action flicks in history. The problem with the third one, more than anything else, was that it was largely just more of the same; and you can only recycle the same plot so many times before it gets stale. This explains the filmmakers’ decision to set this fourth installment (2009) in the post-apocalyptic future where the machine-controlled Skynet is at war with the surviving humans, otherwise known as The Resistance.
A few characters from the previous films are featured: An older John Conner (Christian Bale), his dad Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), who's actually just a teenager here (such are the complexities of time travel) and the T-800 Schwarzenegger Terminator (CGI face, of course). Beyond these we get some new characters, the best being Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), followed by Blair Williams (Moon Bloodgood). Also on hand are: Conner's mate, Kate (Bryce Dallas Howard), a mute girl named Star and Helena Bonham Carter in a peripheral role.
On the surface everything is of the highest filmmaking caliber. The problem is that there's not enough character development or intriguing respites. So what we end up with is a plot that strings together a bunch of cool post-apocalyptic action sequences with people who are constantly grim, shouting and killing, but we barely know them and therefore hardly care. It's like putting on an extreme metal cd that's full of hyper drumming, buzzsaw riffing & screeching/grunting vocals from beginning to end. There are no valleys to contrast the over-the-top highs and so it cops a samey-sounding, dull vibe. In other words, the very energy and excitement meant to impress & move the consumer backfires due to overkill. That's why they call it "overKILL." It's a curious thing but all too true.
Be that as it may, there are enough positive elements in “Terminator Salvation” to make it worth checking out if you’ve seen the first two films. For instance, Marcus Wright is an intriguing protagonist who thinks there's no good in him until he is informed otherwise. At around the 45-minute mark there's a good campfire scene in the desert between two characters sharing a warm moment in a world gone mad. The film would have been more effective if it contained more scenes like this. But there's a decent revelation in the second hour concerning one of the main characters. Meanwhile Bryce Dallas Howard has a uniquely beautiful face (although she’s pregnant throughout the story). There are also some interesting ruminations about the nature of being a human and being a machine, or both.
Bottom line, if you love action, you'll get it here. There are motorcycle-bots, fish-bots, giant-bots, flying-bots and Schwarzenegger-bots, all trying to terminate the protagonists. Since the events take place in a post-apocalyptic world it’s reminiscent of films like “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” (1970), “Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome” (1985) and, especially, “Reign of Fire” (2002), albeit with constant outrageous thrills.
The first two films in the series successfully captivate the viewer from the get-go and the suspense builds to avalanche proportions. Even the third installment accomplished this to a lesser degree, although the plot was old-hat by that point (2003); still, it was a decent entry. "Terminator Salvation," on the other hand, only captivates marginally in preference for wall-to-wall action. That's too bad, but it has its moments; it's thankfully not as bad as "The Mummy Returns" (2001) in this regard. Not to mention it'll likely play better on repeat viewings in light of the convoluted plot.
The theatrical release runs 115 minutes and the director's cut 118 minutes. The film was shot in New Mexico.
Here's how I grade each of the Terminator outings (I have yet to see the sixth one):
T1: A+
T2: A+
T3: B+
T4: B-
T5: C+

I know that even amongst the rocky track record of the _Terminator_franchise, _Terminator Salvation_ is not especially well-liked. I've always been a little bit of an outlier when it came to this series though; like everyone else, I know the first two are the only great ones, but to me, it's actually not _T2_ that stands at the top of the pile, but _The Terminator_, the first film. And since that first film, we've copped 5 new runs at a _Terminator_ movie. Out of all 5 of them, _Salvation_ is the only one that tried something different from the first one. Even the lofty success of _T2_ was garnered using the same core concept as the original movie. _Salvation_ hits something new, and while that obviously doesn't work for a lot of its audience, for me, it's the best movie outside of the first two that the franchise has made to date.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

What can I say about Terminator Salvation? It's a decent addition to the Terminator series, but has major issues. Some would say that it is the worst of the series, but I disagree. T3 will always hold that top honor for me.
It was nice to see the return of Kyle Reeese. It was a different look at a character that was forgotten to quickly. John Connor was a bit stale and I wanted way from his character.
It was nice to see this future everyone spoke about in past films, Problem was this film felt darker than all the others, excluding T1. The first film was pretty dark but had a storyline And an R Rating to back that up. This film just didn't feel like it belonged to the Terminator world. And a few nostalgic lines and visuals did nothing to make it feel like it was part of the franchise.
All of that being said, the film still had some decent action scenes and some interesting moments. It's not bad, but its not fantastic either.

worst of the terminator series

What can I say about this movie, its amazing! full of explosions and action. The setting is slightly different than other terminator films but I like this new "survival" setting more so than the older terminators. Terminator 2 was and always will be my favourite terminator movie but this one sure comes close, defiantly my second favourite terminator movie.
There is only so much a review can tell you but this is a must watch movie for any one who has not seen it yet.

**An enjoyable film that gives us, perhaps, more than we could have hoped for.**
This film surprised by not coming from any of the major animation studios and, even so, having a lot of quality and winning the Oscar for Best Animated Film. I didn't see it at the time, I just saw it now, but I can say that I was reasonably pleased. The film pays an honorable tribute to the old western movies with a narrative set in the present day, but in a small village in the Nevada desert, where the water has disappeared, causing fear to all the residents, who still live and behave as they did in the old days.
Of course, the characters are anthropomorphic animals, and the protagonist is an unnamed chameleon (mistakenly called lizard by everyone) who, already in the city, adopts the name of Rango, eventually being promoted sheriff. As such, he will have to deal with bandits, protect the already scarce water supplies and find out what happened to these supply. Overall, the story is quite satisfying and has its merits. The film is neither too childish nor overly tiring for adults, I felt there was enough material to appeal to a wide range of age groups.
Directed by Gore Verbinsky, the film has a very pleasant pace, despite being a little longer than most animated films, which almost never exceed 90 minutes. In addition to really beautiful and well-executed cinematography, with good lighting and good use of color, the film has the best digital animation, clearly evident in the details of the buildings, the characters and the environment in which they move. The issue of water, and its importance, was not wrongly thought either, and it seems increasingly relevant in the times we live in… you don't have to live in the desert to feel the lack of drinking water. The soundtrack also deserves a special mention for its relevance and quality, with melodies that alternate between epic, western and Latin-Mexican.
Finally, a note of appreciation for the quality of the voice actors and the work they did together: Johnny Depp works very well with his voice in the main character, and he still plays another character, in another vocal timbre. Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin, Bill Nighy, Ned Beatty and Alfred Molina are all in great shape here.

'Rango' is typically one of those movies that can't quite be categorized into this or that little genre of comedy. Obviously, it's an animated film. Is it a kiddie movie? Well… kind of. Allow me to elaborate. The film starts off absolutely hilariously, with an accident, half a road kill and a journey through the desert turned into a maniacal chase as soon as a hungry hawk gets wind of Rango's presence. After meeting a lovely lizard named Beans, he ends up in the small town of Dirt. Where, after a good deal of bluff and dumb luck, he is appointed sheriff. So far, no harm, no foul, just good comedy. In fact, nearly-wetting-my-pants-laughing-out-loud-comedy.
However, at this point is where it all turns just a little bit haywire. No real damage done, just a small sense of cluelessness as we go along. The story continues as though Gore Verbinski and John Logan were just trying to think of as many weird situations as they possibly could whilst forcibly trying to mash it up into one, cohesive storyline. Truth be told, seems like they were trying just a little bit too hard. It actually gets even a little bit boring here and there, where the pacing kind of sinks in up to the point where it all comes together and starts to make sense again. (Mind you – this could also be due to the fact that I was watching the extended version, not the theatrical one, but still.) But fear not, no real quality is lost, as 'Rango' provides some of the most excellent and funny characters I've ever seen in an animated movie. They also rounded up a perfect voice-cast, with Johnny Depp who doesn't sound anything like Jack Sparrow, but still adds the same kind of awkward quirkiness to his character. Alfred Molina's part is small but vital, and I'll bet you've never heard an armadillo with a perfect Mexican twang before… Bill Nighy is awesome as Rattlesnake Jake, and you can even hear a little bit of Davy Jones coming through sometimes. One of the best parts however, is done by Ray Winstone as Bad Bill. Who would expect some Wild West bad guy to have a cockney accent? Brilliant.
Another thing I must mention is the superb animation. Without a doubt the best I've ever seen from a non-Pixar production. Heck, even if it was Pixar it would have been their absolute best so far, and that's saying something. The animation parallels – or, dare I say, even surpasses – Finding Nemo. That's right; I said it, so sue me. Yep, Industrial Lights & Magic made a fan out of me.
Now, back to the original question – is it a kiddie movie? Yes and no. Some parts are totally hilarious and will have your youngsters rolling over the floor with laughter. Other parts will sail right over their little heads as they are very much grown-up humour with references to classic films and jokes they simply won't get. (Is it just me or did I catch a tiny reference to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in the beginning?) Another factor is that some of the humour is a little grim and quite mature for small children, with some of the creatures smoking, swearing and even getting shot and/or killed. Now, personally I don't know any children who would be upset by any of this, they see things that are much worse on a daily basis on the Disney channel. But then again, I'm not American, and it is my understanding that some American parents are hugely bothered by some of the elements in this movie. So I would recommend that you simply watch it first and then decide if you would like your children to see it. But honestly, I would try not to be too sensitive about it, it doesn't get scary anywhere and none of language or behaviour is really that bad.
All in all, 'Rango' is definitely a fun ride, and one of the few animated movies that will entertain as many adults as it will children.
_(July 2011)_

Honestly, I wasn't excited to see this film. I know I'll just catch this in dvd. But since there's nothing to do and it's my birthday and Mayi will treat me, okay!
The animation was great. I really liked the animation. The story was alright too. But the pacing of the story was slow that I was close to snoozing off. I felt like there were some scenes in the movie that should've been cut off.

The "A Quiet Place" franchise has truly delivered a remarkable and unexpected story that has captured my attention in ways I never imagined. While I have previously reviewed the original movie, I am now diving into this extraordinary series.
The first film introduced a concept rarely seen in cinema, with its focus on minimal dialogue. Despite the absence of traditional conversations, the movie keeps viewers engaged and on the edge of their seats. The actors and actresses involved in the film are exceptionally well-suited to the unique demands of the story.
One aspect that stands out is the portrayal of the creatures without relying on overdone CGI effects. This choice creates a sense of suspense and keeps audiences guessing about the story's direction. The film's ability to sustain excitement is truly commendable.
In the sequel, the story delves deeper into the characters' journeys within this terrifying world. While there is slightly more dialogue, the film still maintains its gripping silence from the start and keeps viewers engrossed throughout. Even when encountering what appears to be alien characters, the film avoids excessive use of CGI, ensuring that the creatures are not portrayed in a ridiculous or unbelievable manner.
Overall, the "A Quiet Place" franchise offers a unique and enthralling viewing experience that defies expectations and keeps audiences invested in its suspenseful narrative.

More standard fare. 'A Quiet Place Part II' is, for all intents and purposes, 'Stranger Things' meets 'The Walking Dead' (I am here for the Eleven and Rick crossover, tbf).
I may hold issues with the first film, though at least you can definitely class it as original given the use of sound. That 2018 film is very much enviroment-based, whereas this 2020 flick is far more human-based - and not in the best way. I still didn't dislike it, but I can't honestly say I found entertainment in it either - despite it having Emily Blunt and Cillian Murphy, two actors I tend to enjoy a lot . They are good here though, don't get me wrong.
I found this one to be more forgettable and ploddy, like does anything tangible actually happen? I'm struggling to remember anything, and I've only just finished watching. It's a pretty straightforward affair, this. I will note, however, that Millicent Simmonds does a neat job with her role throughout - an improvement from 'A Quiet Place', certainly (not that she is anything bad in that, mind).
Here's hoping Part III holds the first film's ilk. Admittedly, at least this one doesn't feature any moments as overtly stupid as its predecessor does (well, actually... OK, I'll let you off this time, Marcus).