**A Quiet Place Part II is a marvelous sequel that rises to the heights of its predecessor and possibly beyond!**
It is nearly impossible to choose which is better: the original or the sequel. A Quiet Place: Part II expands the world of A Quiet Place outside of the Abbott farm adding new survivors and new locations. The characters become richer and more endearing as they develop throughout. There is even more to learn about the fearsome creatures as well. Part II boasts incredibly tense scenes that rival the first film that will have you on the edge of your seat and your heart pounding. There are some frustrating scenes where characters make idiotic decisions that build tension but also a slight annoyance, but alas, so are all horror films. This film is as good as the first and expands the franchise's universe with the hope of more epic, suspenseful-filled sequels.

A Quiet Place Part II ditches the tension and the stealth the first film was known for and introduces more monsters, more action, more characters, and more of a world that’s barely hanging on by a thread.
Lee’s oldest kids become the key players here, with Emily Blunt’s Evelyn Abbott taking a backseat, while Murphy proves why he’s one of the most underrated actors working today.
Overall, A Quiet Place Part II is an exceptionally entertaining sequel with quality performances and a primary focus on monster mayhem which, as horror and suspense fans, we should all get behind.
Full review: https://boundingintocomics.com/2021/06/06/a-quiet-place-part-ii-review-long-time-no-hear/

Good, not great, follow up. Some good suspense-filled scenes and solid emotive performances since there's not a whole lot of dialogue. The first one was better as a whole but this is a worthwhile sequel, simplistic which is a plus, no unnecessary drama on the human side. Don't know if I'll revisit it anytime soon but as a one-off viewing, it works well enough. **3.5/5**

It’s not bad but really when you take a look at it from the no hype perspective it’s basically a few action scenes and not much else.
It’s short changing the audience in arc replacing it with an average plot.
It’s not terrible and everyone is great in it. It’s just the actual story is very vacuous and that disappoints.

Not gonna say more but a worthy sequel and gives same or some might say more goosebumps than prequel but amazing work by jhon krasinski and new cinematography director etc .overall good cinematography, visuals etc was interesting. I enjoyed it and would love a sequel. Personal rating 8 .thank you.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
If you're reading this, then you probably visited my review of 2018's A Quiet Place. Hence, you know how much I absolutely love that movie. A low-budget, high-concept horror flick that surprised everyone, including myself, ultimately becoming one of the very best films of the respective year, as well as one of the best original horror stories in the last couple of decades. Now, I acknowledge that John Krasinski created something that could very well turn out to be the "next big thing" when it comes to horror franchises. However, that doesn't mean I support that endeavor. Artistically, I would much rather prefer for this to be a one-off, but I know better than anyone that if an original movie is tremendously successful at the box office - especially one that requires a short amount of money to make - sequel talks will obviously emerge.
My only major issue with the first film was, in fact, its ending. It's an admittedly badass conclusion, but it also felt like a cry to Hollywood in order to extend the story. I didn't expect this type of ending for such a character-driven personal project, but in all honesty, I rather have a sequel to A Quiet Place than the 10th SAW film or the continuation of the never-ending Fast & Furious saga. With that said, my expectations were still pretty high due to Krasinski's even more impactful involvement in the movie. With sole screenwriting credit and only possessing a few minutes of screentime this time around, Krasinski gets more time to focus on his primary technical role, delivering, once again, a masterfully directed film.
I find A Quiet Place Part II inferior to its predecessor in many ways, but the extreme levels of suspense generated by Krasinski's flawless direction are still the highlight of this saga. The beautifully shot opening sequence (cinematography by Polly Morgan) sets up the incredibly high level of tension for the subsequent monster scenes, all requiring the viewers to hold their breath for several minutes. These nerve-wracking moments are elevated by terrific acting performances across the board - I'll get there - but Krasinski demonstrates exquisite knowledge of the art of filmmaking, using his best attributes in favor of the movie. Boasting a nail-biting atmosphere and effective jumpscares, the characters find a few imaginative evasion maneuvers to avoid the monsters.
However, this leads me to one of my main issues with this sequel. The first film establishes the creatures in its ruthless, merciless first few minutes, where it becomes clear that if someone makes the tiniest noise and if a monster is nearby, they're dead. There's a minimal chance of survival, and the emotionally resonant ending also attests to this fundamental, lethal aspect of the whole "sound-hunting beasts" concept. Nevertheless, during the entire runtime of the sequel, including the phenomenal opening, it's like we're witnessing different monsters. If the first movie already had a couple of logic-related issues, this sequel increases the number of personal nitpicks.
People can run away quite a bit before the creatures get close - so much that I firmly believed the film would go back to the opening sequence to explain how the main characters managed to escape a specific attack. Protagonists survive absurdly improbable situations due to heavy plot armor. Even a couple of character/plot decisions are questionable, to say the least, particularly the trigger that sets up the third act. After the first movie, where everything feels surprisingly grounded and far from nonsensical, jumping to the continuation of the same story and having to disconnect our brain continuously is a bit disappointing, especially since the screenplay remains incredibly focused on the characters.
Almost every element in this film feels less emotionally impactful than the original, but it's far from being a massive letdown. In fact, having in mind the competition in the genre, A Quiet Place Part II might even be one of the best horror sequels ever for all I know. Firstly, the actors are absolutely magnificent. Emily Blunt (Evelyn) and Cillian Murphy - who I didn't expect to have that much importance and screentime as he has - bring their experience to a movie where the young actors are the ones who truly shine. Noah Jupe (Marcus) and Millicent Simmonds (Regan) steal the spotlight from the more renowned colleagues, delivering impressive performances that will surely guarantee them several award nominations by the end of the year.
The focus on deeply exploring the characters strengthens the emotional connection with the viewers, making every scene carry a certain gravitas. Ethical dilemmas are beautifully tackled through Murphy's character, Emmett, who creates an unexpected bond with Regan. The latter stands out as a brave, smart, altruist deaf girl who should inspire many people worldwide - it's worth remembering that Simmonds, a real-life deaf girl, brings outstanding authenticity to her role. Just like the original film, most dialogues contain sign language, so the narrative is also developed through visual storytelling. Once again, Krasinski knows perfectly when and how to tell the audience something exclusively through the camera, many times just pure silence, keeping the viewers' attention on the screen at all times.
Throughout the sequel, there are various visual nods and callbacks to the first flick that I also appreciated quite a lot, such as a certain object on a shelf or a repeated sentence. The ending carries less emotional weight than the original's brutal final minutes, but the entire last act will go down as one of the most impeccably edited conclusions of the year. Michael P. Shawver needs to cross-cut between excruciatingly tense sequences on completely different locations with important characters facing the same level of danger. The action is displayed seamlessly, letting the viewers genuinely enjoy the last moments of the movie without annoyingly choppy editing. Marco Beltrami's score is really gripping during the entirety of these last few scenes.
A Quiet Place Part II feels less than its predecessor in almost every element, but it's still one of the best sequels of the genre. From the riveting, frenetic opening sequence - much of it shot in long, uncut takes - to one of the most impressively edited endings I've seen in years, John Krasinski maintains an incredibly tense, suspenseful atmosphere throughout the entire runtime, something that's becoming a trademark of his directing career. Story-wise, the characters continue to be the main focus of the narrative. Boasting emotional dilemmas and bold character development, the kids have a surprising impact on the overall screenplay. Cillian Murphy and Emily Blunt are remarkable, but Noah Jupe and Millicent Simmonds are astonishing, especially the latter. However, the monsters are depicted in a much less threatening, lethal manner, leading to many questionable plot decisions, as well as absurd survival situations. In addition to this, the world-building lacks significant revelations and creative ideas. Overall, it's a less emotionally resonant film than the original, which doesn't exactly let me down, but I did expect more from this sequel. Still, I highly recommend watching it at the theater. After all, both audience and critics are enjoying this movie tremendously...
Rating: B

Last year we had a screening for “A Quiet Place Part II” scheduled and eagerly awaited the follow-up to the suspenseful and popular original film. Sadly we all know what happened soon after as a two-week lockdown grew and cinemas around the world were closed.
As cinemas re-open with growing but limited capacity; the film is set for release and will be a great indicator as to if the public is ready to return to cinemas in significant numbers or will they sit it out and opt to see the film down the line on Paramount+.
The film opens with a look at the day things changed for the world as Lee (John Krasinski); does some shopping while news reports come in of an explosion in Shanghai. Enjoying the weather; he joins his family at a Little League game and talks with his friend Emmett (Cillian Murphy) when the game is interrupted by the appearance of a large fireball in the sky.
As they head home; the city falls under attack by deadly creatures and Lee and his family narrowly escape. The film then jumps forward immediately following the conclusion of the first film and Evelyn (Emily Blunt); attempts to lead her newborn son, daughter Regan ( Millicent Simmons), and son Marcus (Noah Jupe) to a safer locale.
When Marcus is injured along the way; Evelyn takes refuge with Emmett who is not happy to have to care for others after the loss of his wife and despite a secure locale in a foundry; demands the family leave the following day.
When an unexpected radio signal appears; Regan is determined to leave and find the source as she knows the frequency of her Cochlear Implant is a weapon against the creatures and she figures if that can be broadcasted and the information revealed; then humanity has a chance to fight back and win.
What follows is a very gripping and intense story as Regan and Emmett attempt to complete the mission while Evelyn and her family endure all manner of threats as they try to survive.
The film builds upon what made the first film so great in that there are strong and relatable characters and some very tense situations. The screening we attended was so quiet you could tell that audience members were so enthralled that they were afraid to make any noise.
The film ups the action and expands upon the universe without losing any of the strong character-driven elements or relying too much upon CGI to carry the film.
John Krasinski writes, directed, and produced the film, and while he has less screen time than he did in the original; the film is the rare sequel that holds its own and actually improves upon the original.
My only issue with the film was that the ending was rather abrupt and left me with several unanswered questions. While this would be more than fine if we were assured of a third film to resolve unanswered elements; word is that a spin-off is in development so hopefully this will resolve the issues I had or at the least co-exist with a third part of the series.
For now; “A Quiet Place Part II” drives home why we need the cinematic experience as from the large screen to the Dolby Atmos sound; the film is a sensory experience that needs to be enjoyed in a communal setting with maximum sensory input.
The film sets the tension meter to the max and never disappoints and I urge you to experience this film the way it was intended.
4.5 stars out of 5

Tim Burton's original Batman definitely deserved a worthy sequel. Unfortunately, this just doesn't cut it. Keaton's Batman deserved more grit and drama, not corny comical antics. It's worth a look, but keep your expectations low.

The only other great batman movie. Not as much action but still was a really good movie.

**Batman Returns overplays the comic book campiness of the decade and Burton's strange style but is balanced by astonishing performances and a more contained superhero story.**
Warner Bros was quick to begin production on a sequel to Batman (1989) after its colossal success literally saved the studio from bankruptcy. This time Tim Burton was given complete creative control over the entire film, and it shows. Batman Returns cranked up the campy weirdness that the studio had restrained in the first Batman. This film focuses on Danny DeVito's Penguin and Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman over Batman, making Michael Keaton feel like the supporting cast to Pfeiffer and DeVito. As disappointing as that may sound, Pfeiffer took this over-the-top campy Catwoman and delivered a truly iconic performance, and DeVito performed much the same in his role. I appreciated Batman Returns avoiding the comic book movie trope of putting the entire world or whole sitting at stake. Instead, the story concentrates on corrupt businessmen and politicians avoiding giant sky beams. The climax risks a more significant part of the city, but it's still more localized than most comic book films. Batman Returns has its flaws, but the Christmas setting, the return of Michael Keaton to his career-defining role, and Pfeiffer and DeVito's incredible acting overcome the severe campiness and lack of Batman, resulting in a decent entry in the Dark Knight's 90s franchise.

I love a good plot twist as much as next person but maybe it was better back then.

Jimmy Stewart is cracking as the laid-up photographer who spends his chair-ridden days casually observing the day-to-day activities of his neighbours. Gradually, he becomes suspicious of one of them as the wife suddenly disappears and the husband (Raymond Burr) starts making odd trips out at night; calling long distance and generally acting oddly. Grace Kelly (his girlfriend) thinks this all a bit too prurient for her but is slowly drawn into his web of intrigue and ends up an active participant with his investigations as we now have a great conspiracy theory thriller. Thelma Ritter is great as "Stella" as is Wendell Corey as "Det. Doyle". This is a tight, tense drama with a really cohesive cast under the skilful direction of the master of this genre.

Probably have seen this a half dozen times over the years and still is my favorite Hitchcock movie, favorite mind you not best. Simple story and taking place in one location, but good performances from James Stewart and Grace Kelly. **4.5/5**

It Had To Be Murder.
L.B. Jefferies is a wheelchair bound photographer who by way of relieving his boredom, starts observing the lives of all his neighbours from his apartment window. As he gets deeper into the lives of all around him, he becomes convinced that one of hem has committed the act of murder, thus putting himself and those close to him in mortal danger.
Much like most of Alfred Hitchcock's other lauded pictures, Rear Window has been dissected, examined, appraised and written about by far more versed people than myself, a mere film fanatic. So how do I even start to write a review of a film that I view as one of Hitchcock's best? Well maybe I should just write what I like about it without delving into psycho babble and a deconstruction of the human psyche and all its little offshoots! So I will!.
Rear Window is adapted by Alfred Hitchcock and his writer John Michael Hayes, from the Cornell Woolrich story called It Had To Be Murder/Murder From A Fixed Viewpoint. The film of course forces us the viewers to become voyeurs, watching a newly hooked voyeur go about his business. Quite a neat trick from Hitchcock, and one can reasonably assume that the maestro director was chuckling with glee within his genius girth.
Working from the confines of a single set, Hitchcock has molded a suspenseful, intriguing, cheeky and sexy picture, with a top line cast giving the smart screenplay the performances it deserved. What is often forgot by those more concerned with the psychological aspects of Rear Window is the blatant irony of L.B. Jefferies situation, his obsession with the neighbours is not confined to a probable case of murder, his interest first and foremost is with the love lives of those he observes, thus forcing (excusing) him to acknowledge the love from the woman who so wants to be in his life!
It's also important to note the merits of each character of the piece, those that visit Jefferies and the conversations that take place, even the suspected murderer has a bemused interest pouring from his very frame. Rarely has a film been produced that has every single character having a critical element to the story. Then there is the ending where Hitchcock and his team weave all strands together to leave us wryly smiling away whilst simultaneously feeling that we have been had by the big director, and be under no illusions here, we have been at the mercy of a genius and party to a film of unquestionable quality. 10/10

L.B. Jeffries (Jimmy Stewart), an adventurous photographer, is temporarily immobilized by a serious leg injury. Bored, and living in a time where TV and internet were not available as distractions, he watches the courtyard out his real window and speculates about the lives of the neighbors that he sees. In particular, he wonders whether his neighbor Thorvald (Raymond Burr, who actually looks older than his later character Perry Mason) may have killed his wife.
Hitchcock examines the situation from numerous points of view. At one extreme, Jeff could be considered a brilliant detective who sleuths out a case based purely on close observation. At the other end, he could be considered a voyeur and a paranoid whose suspicions could damage other people. These interpretations are voiced by his acquaintances, including his nurse (Thelma Ritter) and his fiance (Grace Kelly, the future Princess Grace of Monaco). In the end physical evidence is found that settles the Thorvald case but leaves Jeff's motivation still in question.
Hitchcock takes advantage of the situation to introduce numerous subplots -- but they're MINIMALIST subplots, where the audience only sees what Jeff sees from his window. (Mild spoilers follow) Newlyweds quarrel, a depressed woman considers suicide but is rescued by a neighbor; a sexy girl ("Miss Torso") turns out to be not a party girl but devoted to an absent boyfriend.
An entertaining thing about this movie is that we have numerous actors -- Stewart, Kelly, and Burr -- who are to become more famous for later movies and incidents.

Pearl Harbor is one of those movies that gets a lot of hate, but honestly, I don’t think it deserves all of it. People go in expecting a war film and get a romance drama instead, which seems to be where most of the criticism comes from. The plot focuses more on a love triangle than the historical attack itself, and while that might not be what everyone wanted, it was clearly the film’s intention. If you can accept that it's a romantic drama set against a war backdrop, rather than a war film with romance sprinkled in, then you might appreciate it for what it is.
Michael Bay’s direction is exactly what you’d expect—big, explosive, and visually intense. The action sequences, especially the Pearl Harbor attack, are filmed in his signature style, and they still hold up today. The cinematography is clean, with dramatic wide shots of aerial combat, fiery destruction, and emotional close-ups. Where the film struggles is its pacing. It stretches certain sequences for too long, making it feel uneven at times. The final act, while exciting, feels a bit disconnected from the rest of the movie, almost like it belongs to a different story.
Acting-wise, Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, and Kate Beckinsale do a decent job, but the material they’re working with doesn’t always help them. Their performances are solid but not standout, with some emotional scenes feeling a little forced. The supporting cast, including Cuba Gooding Jr. and Alec Baldwin, adds weight to the film, but the character development is mostly surface-level. The script has its moments but leans into melodrama too often, making some scenes feel more exaggerated than they need to be.
That said, Pearl Harbor delivers where it counts in terms of visuals and sound. The action sequences are stunning, with incredible aerial shots, intense battle choreography, and a level of destruction that still holds up today. The sound design adds a layer of realism, making the chaos of war feel immersive. And then there’s Hans Zimmer’s score, which is hands down one of the best aspects of the film. His music elevates the emotions, making the highs more exhilarating and the lows more heartbreaking. If you watch Pearl Harbor for its spectacle, its music, and its grand-scale drama, there’s a lot to enjoy.

**_A fine drama/romance combined with great war action_**
"Pearl Harbor" (2001) is a Titanic-ized version of the tragic events of Pearl Harbor—a fabricated drama/romance hooking the viewer into the deceitful attack of December 7, 1941.
It's 85 minutes before the attack occurs so the drama/romance and build-up to the infamous day BETTER be good, and it is. It's believable too (except maybe for the premature sex scene, which inaccurately transfers modern morals to the early '40s). This first act successfully brings us back to the era of the early '40s and sets the stage for the attack. I didn't think there would be any action until the big attack but I was wrong, as we get some quality action when Rafe (Ben Affleck) goes over to Europe to fly for the British. There are also a couple of fight sequences.
While dancing & drinking, Evelyn (Kate Beckinsale) comments to Rafe how shy Danny (Josh Hartnett) seems to be while he’s shown just sitting at a table too shy to talk to a girl or ask someone to dance. Rafe responds that Danny is like a brother to him, that Danny's father abused him, and he therefore lacks confidence. While these characters are fictional, this is REAL. Much later, Danny goes to a woman's apartment fumbling & stumbling to ask her out. The conversation is, of course, awkward. He then walks away, speaking under his breath, "You're such an idiot!" This is good stuff.
The film also shows that the timid average-looking man can win the heart of a beautiful woman just as well as the confident handsome man. It's simply a matter of passion, patience, risk, humble pie and playing your cards right.
As for the Pearl Harbor attack, it's a full 30 minutes of great war footage. Critics argue that there are many historical inaccuracies in the film, but what? Seriously, what is so historically inaccurate in the film? I'm sure there are a few minor inaccuracies (maybe Jimmy Doolittle's boot laces weren't right, Oh, my God!!), but what film with a historical backdrop ever has everything 100% right? The gist of the event is accurate. And the subplot with Cuba Gooding Jr. as Navy boxer Doris Miller is a true story.
The film is also respectful of the Japanese viewpoint as they meticulously plan, prepare for, and carry out their massive raid. I felt this was generous on the filmmakers' part since nothing can justify their deceitful and cowardly assault. They spoke with forked tongue of peace while planning the unprovoked aggression. Meanwhile there’s a great scene showing the Japanese pilots the night before the raid, praying and psyching up for the attack. It's very realistic.
After the attack, I knew there was a good 50 minutes left in the film so I was apprehensive regarding the remainder of the story; not to worry, though, as this final act compellingly details The Doolittle Raid, the first American bombing mission over Japan. More great war action.
This bold mission took place a mere 4.5 months after the Pearl Harbor attack on April, 1942. The raid is notable in that it was the only time in US military history that bombers were launched from an aircraft carrier. Sixteen modified bombers with five-men crews successfully bombed 10 military and industrial targets in and around Tokyo. Unfortunately, this was a one-way mission and they were forced to fly to mainland China to land, crashland or bail out, IF they had enough fuel, that is. Most of the Americans made it to China and safety with the help of Chinese civilians and soldiers, but hey paid dearly for helping as it is estimated that the Japanese killed 250,000 Chinese, vengefully searching for Doolittle's men! Incidentally, Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle is greatly portrayed by Alec Baldwin and, true to history, the picture shows Doolittle taking part in the daring mission. More historical accuracy.
Some criticize that the Doolittle Raid doesn't belong in the movie, but nothing could be further from the truth. If all the flick showed was the Pearl Harbor attack and the immediate aftermath it would've ended on a real downer. Showing the successful Doolittle Raid makes the film end on a positive note. What effect did the raid have at the time? For one, it caused American moral to soar from the depths. It has the same inspiring effect on viewers.
In light of all the criticism I kept waiting for "Pearl Harbor" to stumble and fail, but it never happened. Yes, the viewer has to be open to the drama/romance as it leisurely unfolds, but this just helps make the viewer CARE about the characters before the tragic events inevitably occur. I'm not a fan of Michael Bay. I have zero interest in his "Transformers" films, but this is great filmmaking. It provokes interest in the events and inspires the viewer to research them in more detail.
The film runs 3 hours, 3 minutes.
GRADE: A

After about half an hour, I started to wonder if this film was going to take as long to get going as a pearl takes to form in an oyster! It's a close run thing, as it must be around eighty minutes in before the Japanese come to the rescue of the audience and introduce some action into this over-long and dreary romance. Certainly it is all handsomely presented with Ben Affleck ("Rafe") at his most swarthy as he gets it to together with "Evelyn" (Kate Beckinsale). Having put us through the usual "how to get the girl" shenanigans, though, he heads off to the UK to help in the Battle of Britain. It's from here that reports reach her that he has been killed. Enter his best friend "Danny" (Josh Hartnett) who tries to console her before, well you can guess the rest. You can also easily guess that Affleck was being paid way too much money to be out before the fighting began in earnest, so back he duly arrives and a yawn-making love triangle takes over the plot. When we finally do start to focus on the events of December 7th, 1941, the action partially redeems this film. Twenty minutes of a quickly paced depiction of the meticulously planned destruction of the US Pacific fleet that caused mayhem and carnage upon their ill-prepared quarry. The creative use of CGI and intricate photography illustrate well both the human catastrophe as well as the significant destruction of materiel. Of course, our two survive and together with their erstwhile CO "Doolittle" (Alec Baldwin) are drafted into the retaliation plan than involves a perilous, long range, bombing attack on Tokyo to demonstrated that they still have the capacity for potent response. This is two films, really, and I much preferred the later stages. Even then, though, it has a shockingly poor script and the characterisations are weak and undercooked. The technology is used well, but that's about all I can say for this sentimental and meandering offering.

OK! Lets not beat around the bush, it's historically suspicious, badly written, badly cast and clearly an hour too long. A splendid "support cast" are wasted as Michael Bay and his production team think they can produce some sort of Titanic of the Skies like epic and fail in their objective. By the time of the brilliantly constructed assault by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, and "it is" exhilarating and edge of the seat heart pounding, you are left with the feeling that all the main characters in the piece are not really worth our emotional investment.
It's not an outright stinker, situations such as the nurses trying to cope in the hospital during the attack are poignant, and there's a jingoistic - cum - romantic fervour that screams out that the film wants to be genuine in making you feel, well, emotionally battered. However, given the budget and time you are asked to invest in the story, it's impossible not to feel cheated as the clock ticks past the three hour mark.
Perhaps it's unfair to use Titanic as a template for this type of epic? Especially since over the course of time many have come out of the woodwork to knock Titanic when previously there were nods in appreciation for it, all be it grudgingly. But Pearl Harbor just doesn't have enough about it to make it even a "time waster" recommendation, and this even allowing for some quality "Bayhem" action as the film rolls into its blunderbuss third quarter. 5/10

"Grace" (Nicole Kidman) lives in her almost blacked-out stately pile on Jersey where her two children "Nicholas" (James Bentley) and "Anne" (Alakina Mann) are hyper-sensitive to light. When her staff mysteriously abscond, she has to employ a new housekeeper "Mrs. Mills" (Fionnula Flanagan), and together they must ensure that the children are always locked into a room with no access to any windows that are not shrouded by thick curtains. The suddenly she hears a noise. Maybe a voice, even? She searches in vain but these odd occurrences start to multiply. Their usually fastidious household routines start to unwind, doors are left unlocked and the children start telling their mother of people moving around the house - folks that she cannot see! Just what's going on? Are these happenings connected with "Mills" and the new staff? Great news when husband "Charles" (Christopher Eccleston) returns from the War - shellshocked and distant, or then again - does he actually return at all? "Grace" is becoming increasingly paranoid. She can't tell what's real and what's not - and her children are only fuelling her fears! Although way darker and more sinister, this actually reminded me a little of the "Amazing Mr. Blunden"! A ghostly story that uses children as a conduit between what might have been, or is, or may yet to be. The young Bentley and Mann deliver effectively here as director Alejandro Amenábar uses the dark and creaky house, extensive and frequently misty grounds and a creative sound effects mixer to create a genuine sense of menace. It's very hard to be innovate with this genre, there's just so much we have all seen before, but Kidman paces herself well here delivering a story that's not so predictable as we might have expected.

Spectral happenings on an estate in the Channel Islands after WWII (no spoilers)
RELEASED IN 2001 and written & directed by Alejandro Amenábar, "The Others" is a haunted house flick about a woman (Nicole Kidman) who lives in an old manor on one of the Channel Islands with her two photosensitive children immediately after WWII. After three people arrive seeking employment, they increasingly become convinced that the abode is haunted.
While this is a fantasy movie in that it depicts supernatural happenings, like doors mysteriously opening and closing, these types of unexplainable things have been known to happen. The movie is a serious exploration of what may really be occurring. The mansion seems sterile and there’s a one-dimensional pale ‘look’ to the bulk of the picture, which was intentional for obvious reasons. Speaking of which, the perpetually fog-laden grounds create a nice ghostly ambiance.
Everything hinges on whether the last act effectively reveals the truth and it does. The film provides intriguing food for thought.
THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour, 44 minutes and was shot in Cantabria, Spain (exteriors of the mansion); Penshurst, Kent, England (The Lime Walk) and Madrid.
GRADE: B/B-

How can anyone not like this? Phyllida Lloyd has managed to convince half a dozen serious A-list stars to take part in this Mediterranean musical extravaganza. Meryl Streep and Christine Baranksi are cracking and Julie Walters - when the three together sing "Chiquitita" is glorious. Sure, it's not a wonderful piece of classic cinema; but it must bring a smile to your face (even if - as Pierce Brosnan, Stellan Skarsgård or Colin Firth break into song, it's more of a grimace). Dominic Cooper makes a valiant effort as "Sky" who is to wed the orchestrator of this whole predicament "Sophie" (Amanda Seyfried) who has invited the three men to her wedding in the hope that she might find out which of them might be her father. If you don't like ABBA and musical theatre, then don't waste your time; otherwise this is just good fun!

**With a good cast and an enviable and appealing soundtrack, the film promised to be excellent… but it turned out to be much more average than I imagined.**
First of all, I think I need to make a note: I can't say that I'm an ABBA fan, but the truth is that I have a great affection for the band and their songs, because they were songs that I remember hearing on TV when I was a kid. It is a childhood memory, which has a sentimental charge, and which cannot be evaluated in a completely neutral way (childhood memories never leave us neutral).
I have yet to say that I had high expectations for the film. I'm not just talking about the music and the various songs I remember listening to, but also the enormous quality of the cast selected for the project, and the active participation of elements of the former band in the production. It was something that promised to have great quality. Well, the film has its qualities, it's undeniable, but the truth is that I noticed some laziness and sloppiness in the production, in several aspects.
The film's biggest problem was the absence of a well-written script that could support the action and songs. In addition to the slew of summer movie clichés, the script copied an old Italian movie called _Buona Sera Mrs. Campbell_, whose action is based on the dubious parenting of the protagonist's daughter, played by Gina Lollobrigida. I cannot say that we are in a situation of plagiarism because there are many films about children that do not know their parents, but the lack of originality is remarkable. Also, the film seems to almost make the apology of sexual promiscuity! In the midst of an uncomplicated, light, “hippie” environment, the film puts the main character’s mother in an embarrassing situation: she is the single mother of a daughter who grew up not knowing her father because there are three possible “candidates”, with whom she got involved almost simultaneously! And I'd rather not talk about that scene where a mature woman flirts with a guy much younger than her!
Jumping from Broadway to Hollywood, Phyllida Lloyd assured a sincere, but not excellent, effort at the direction. She was not able to demand more from her crew, she allowed a very poor conception of the characters and the choice of actors was not at all happy from the moment they had to sing. The best choices were Amanda Seyfried and Meryl Streep, two solid, charismatic, expressive actresses with an excellent voice. The scenes in which the two are protagonists, speaking or singing, are among the best in the film, which was an excellent bet that Seyfried made in her career. Stellan Skarsgard did reasonably well, but I felt he had little to do, and so Colin Firth... in fact, this English actor, whose voice is not particularly pleasant, already seemed to me to be a dubious choice for a musical. However, he looked like an opera diva when compared to Pierce Brosnan or Julie Walters. The ex-Bond has great difficulty with the treble and sings almost in falsetto, and Walters can't sing without starting to scream.
Technically, the film isn't brilliant either. On the positive side, we have the elegant cinematography, with the sun, the sea and the scenic beauty of the Greek islands favoring the visuals (we have to agree that the filming locations were wonderfully used), as well as the well-conceived sets and costumes. But the film's strong point is the soundtrack, of course, with an abundant list of ABBA songs, so famous that we can sing the entire movie. However, the insertion of each song in the film leaves a lot to be desired, something that, along with somewhat artificial choreography, leaves us with the feeling that the film is almost a gigantic music video clip, with the script being just an excuse for the songs to appear successively.

***SPOILERS AHEAD***
_Mamma Mia!_ is an American-British romantic comedy musical directed by Phyllida Lloyd. The movie is loosely based on the original London musical also directed by Lloyd, and was the brain child of Judy Craymer who was convinced ABBA songs could be used in a theatrical production, especially after hearing the love ballad _The Winner Takes It All_. Craymer along with British playwright Catherine Johnson also worked on this film. Johnson being the original musical's scriptwriter wrote the movie's script, Craymer was an executive producer alongside Gary Goetzman as well as Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson.
The film stars Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgård, Julie Walters, Dominic Cooper, Amanda Seyfried, and Christine Baranski.
Set on the idyllic Greek island of Kalokairi it tells the story of Donna Sheridan (Streep) an independent manageress and owner of her own hotel. Donna has a 20 year-old daughter by the name of Sophie (Seyfried) who is getting married to Sky (Cooper). Upon finding Donna's old diary Sophie discovers that there were three men: Sam Carmichael (Brosnan), Harry Bright (Firth) and Bill Anderson (Skarsgård) and learns that one of them could be her father. She decides to invite all three of them to her wedding.
Sophie later reveals this to her friends Ali (Rachel MacDowall) and Lisa (Ashley Lilley) who have agreed to be her bridesmaids. Donna has invited her old friends/bandmates Rosie (Walters) and Tanya (Baranski) to the wedding to help her out. She is however completely unaware of what Sophie has done and is taken by surprise when Sam, Harry and Bill arrive on the island. This causes Donna to have a mid-life crisis, and it is up to Rosie and Tanya to lift her spirits. While at the same time Sophie bonds with the three men, and discovers she has a trait from each of them. Things get complicated when all three men agree to give Sophie away, and realizing the mess she created she faints at her own bachelorette party.
The next day Sophie runs into Donna who is convinced that she wants the wedding called off. This causes Sophie to yell at Donna, and openly states she wants to avoid all the mistakes Donna has made in her life. At the same time Donna is pursued by Sam, the two realize they still love each other but are too busy for each other. Meanwhile, Tanya is courted by Sky's friend and best man Pepper (Philip Michael) despite the fact that he is old enough to be her son. Sophie then runs to Sky and admits what she did, angry and hurt Sky runs off. At the same time Sam tells Sophie that marriage is not always a happy thing.
Sophie then runs back to her mother and asks her to help her dress for the wedding, Donna is delighted and they mend their relationship. Sophie then learns that Donna was disowned by her mother when she got pregnant, she then proceeds to ask Donna to give her away. Donna happily agrees and as the two prepare to go to the chapel she finds herself accosted by Sam. Sam demands to know why Donna will not explain why she won't talk about their relationship. Donna then says she still loves him despite her better judgement and the fact that he broke her heart by being engaged.
Donna then proceeds to run into the chapel where the wedding finally begins. As the ceremony begins Donna realizes that she can't hide the fact that the men are there. She then introduces Sophie's dad, but then learns that Sophie invited all three of them. They then all decide to be a third of her father, Sophie surprised decides to call off the wedding. Prompting Sky to run away with her and sail the world. Sam meanwhile decides that the wedding should not go to waste, despite Donna's protest at bigamy. After revealing his divorce Sam pops the question, hesitant Donna accepts it. At the wedding reception Rosie falls in love with Bill, who at first rejects her advances but then ends up loving her too.
The movie closes with Donna and Sam alongside Bill and Harry bidding Sophie and Sky farewell as they sail away from Kalokairi. Donna, Tanya and Rosie then reprise _Dancing Queen_ during the end credits, and then the rest of the cast appears and they all sing the song _Waterloo_. The movie then finally ends with Sophie singing _Thank You For the Music_ during the end credits.
Told using several popular ABBA songs including_ Honey, Honey, Honey_, _Dancing Queen_ and the iconic titular song _Mamma Mia_ this movie soundtrack is responsible for making ABBA's music hit the charts again. Albeit some bad singing (cough)Pierce Brosnan(cough) the soundtrack is wonderful. The movie has some references to other films including _Dirty Dancing_ and _Grease._ Meryl Streep's performance of Donna Sheridan is an amazing example of her versatility especially when she sings the love ballad "The Winner Takes It All." "S.O.S" is an interesting scene Brosnan's voice is flat but judging by his body language he is enjoying himself.
If you ignore the bad singing, you will be able to enjoy this film. I highly recommend it and the soundtrack. However, due to royalties and disagreements with UNICEF UMG and Decca Records could not secure the rights to the song _Chiquitita_ which explains why it is not on the CD.
If you have not seen this movie, then what are you waiting for?! Stream it or buy it and do it before July 20 because that is when it's highly anticipated sequel hits theaters!
> It's very Greek! - Rosie

Really enjoyable film, with a lot of funny one-liners, and despite the fact that a lot of them are rubbish singers, that partly adds to the humour, and obviously, Amanda, Meryl, Colin and others do have good voices :)

To Mamma Mia! then, a movie easily slipping in past Coyote Ugly as the second-worst film I've ever seen (behind The Rocky Horror Picture Show). My eyes. I can't unsee it.
From what I could gather (and that's not because the plot is difficult - Christ, no - or because I wasn't really paying attention, it's because the film seemed to be not sinking in, not digesting in my brain. I think my brain was trying to reject it, like a foreign object) - an airy-fairy middle-aged bohemian tart (Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady) prances and dances around her primary-coloured villa on an unspecified Greek (I think) island. Her equally airy-fairy "Barbie Princess" daughter (Amanda Seyfried, Les Misérables) prances and dances around with her. That seems to be what they do. I mean, for a living, like. They're not on holiday. This is the summation of their lives. Idyllic and unrealistic prancery and dancery, around a villa apparently coloured in by over-enthusiastic first-graders. They have two friends each who escort them everywhere - even to the sh!tter perhaps, I dunno - who exist exclusively to orbit like satellites around this main pair. In fact, everybody in this movie exist purely to serve the life stories of Streep and Seyfried. It's that sort of film, where everybody on-screen is wondering, "Oh! Will Streep eat a tangerine next? Or a satsuma? Will Seyfried brush her hair with a soft brush, or a slightly-softer-than-that brush? Oh, the agony!" Anyway, the daughter's getting wed - the next day, I think - to some impossibly perfect young lad (to suit her impossibly perfect everything else), but, oh noes! She never knew who her dad was, because her mum was a dirty old stropper back in the eighties, and they've both been too busy prancing and dancing for two straight decades to even have brought it up, ever! So, who will give her away tomorrow? Oh noes!
Well she prances and dances her way to her mum's secret diary (with her two conjoined mates, obvs) and, equally "obvs", it's all in there. Ta-daa! Except, there are three possible "daddies" and of course, they are Colin Firth (The King's Speech), Pierce Brosnan (Goldeneye) and Stellan Skarsgård (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest). So she invites all three to the wedding under the pretense of being her own mum and of course all three drop whatever they've been doing for twenty years and turbo their way, immediately, to this island, all arriving together, on the same boat, which also belongs to one of them. Hurrah. From there, much "hilarity" ensues as the airy-fairy daughter tries to suss which one's her dad while her airy-fairy tart mother spends the rest of the film - with HER conjoined mates, obvs - wondering whether to let Brosnan "tap dat ass" one more time.
**********
SPOILER ALERT (LIKE ANYONE GIVES A DRY, UNYIELDING BUMPLOP): They don't find out who the daddy is: the three pinhead blokes all agree that they now already love this silly airy-fairy daughter so much that they agree to be one-thirds daddy each. Then, out of the clear ****ing sky, the airy-fairy daughter tells her groom at the altar that the wedding's off, and they should just prance and dance around the world instead. Fantastic! And not to waste a wedding full of perfect ****ing strangers anyway, but Brosnan decides to marry Streep while they're there. Well of course. And Skarsgård hooks up with Julie "Isn't she dead yet?" Walters - one of Streep's conjoined mates - and Firth, who as it happens was a left-footer all along who was just experimenting with Streep back in the day, cops off with a waiter in traditional Greek island fashion. Hurrah for everything! Let's have another ABBA song, eh?
**********
Oh, the ABBA songs. I mean, there are musicals. Then, there are musical musicals. And then, way past any of that, there is Mamma Mia!. A quick Wiki-up shows me that, excluding reprises and a deleted scene, there are twenty songs performed in Mamma Mia!. So, say, four minutes per song, that's eighty minutes. Wiki (again) tells me that the film is 109 minutes in length, so let's knock off ten minutes-worth of credits, and you're looking at eighty minutes of singing in a 99 minute film. That sounds about right. A 19-minute story - a p!ss-poor one, at that - stretched over an hour-and-a-half by the soothing tunes of Agnetha, Benny, Bjorn and Anni-Frid. Looking at those numbers I'm now somewhat impressed that whilst watching this pile of pooey bum-leavings I didn't stand up, lose the plot, smash my house to rubble and wander off to live in the woods as a sasquatch. It was ceaseless. An ABBA song, three lines of dialogue (if you were lucky, which wasn't often), another ABBA song. Over and over. And... well, the songs were all sung in-camera by the actors. And whilst I wouldn't call any of them good singers, they could all at least hold a note (only just in Streep's case, but she managed to stumble over that line).
All except Pierce Brosnan.
Oh, Pierce. Pierce! Why didn't someone tell him? Did no one care enough? Is he THAT unlikeable? Why couldn't he hear it himself? I don't want to come across as either xenophobic or stereotypical when I suggest that he sounded like a drunken Irishman preparing to fight, but that IS what he sounded like. And who knows, maybe that's what was really happening with him at that time. He IS an Irishman, perhaps he needed to get good and liquored up before the singing - I know I would - and perhaps he was wondering whether or not to attack the first person on the set who dared laugh. Sounds perfectly plausible.
Anyway, the whole thing's a travesty, top-to-toe. Most closely resembled one of those straight-to-video Barbie movies, beloved of six-year-old girls and nobody else on the entire planet. If you ever have an opportunity to see it, DO NOT take that opportunity. SPURN that opportunity. Spurn as though your very life depended on it. That's all the advice I can give. Don't do what I did, and watch Mamma Mia!. Only madness lies that way.

**A very expensive video game made for people who have never been to war, without any basis in true historical facts, and which almost insults the history of Greece.**
A few years ago, I wrote a short text for the movie “300”, which I found repugnant and an insult to anyone who knows the slightest bit about Greek history. Unfortunately, Frank Miller's graphic novels show that, for him, History is not important. I didn't expect these films to be documentaries, but the amount of exaggeration and absurd anachronisms is unbearable. When I studied Greek History in college, I had to read a very complete book on the subject (among others, but this one particularly impressed me). I would love to be able to use it to slap Miller and the producers of this movie.
The great – and only – redeeming quality of this film is its visual exuberance, achieved at the expense of colossal amounts of CGI to great effect, which amplify the fight scenes to the extreme and give the film the appearance of an extremely expensive video game. The use of slow-motion and some sound effects serve to amplify the battle and give it a glorious, choreographed, fake look. I usually say that only those who have never had to participate in a war will like war... after seeing such homoerotic attraction for war, and for naked athletic bodies spurting blood, I am pretty sure that, in this film, very few went through a real war.
Sullivan Stapleton and Eva Green are the only two actors who deserve some attention here, and this is due to the protagonism of their characters, fictional and carnivalesque versions of two historical characters: Themistocles and Artemisia. Lucky for both actors, there wasn't much concern to be historically accurate: Themistocles and Artemisia were older than these two actors. He was, above all, an Athenian politician with a lot of public experience at the time of the events of this film, while she was a queen, the widow of the Satrap of Caria. And contrary to what the movie says, she didn't command the Persian fleet, although she was one of the main commanders.
As I said, the film is full of historical inaccuracies: the Persian Wars began with the annexation of Lydia by Cyrus the Great, Persia's first Achaemenid monarch. Included in the conquest were the cities of Ionia, culturally Greek and subject to Lydia. They tried to separate with the support of Athens, but Emperor Darius won them, going against the Athenians. It is then that Themistocles appears, defending the creation of an Athenian fleet capable of facing the Persian, and that Marathon is won, the work of his political rival Miltiades. Darius dies (of natural causes, forget the movie) and Xerxes succeeds him. This was followed, as is known, by the Battle of Thermopylae, where more than 1,400 Greeks died (and not just the famous 300). At the same time, the Battle of Artemisium was fought on the seas, in which Themistocles stopped the Persian fleet. Xerxes makes his way to Athens, which is hastily evacuated by sea before the Persians sack and burn the city. It is Themistocles who then decides to pretend to be a traitor and suggest to Xerxes a decisive attack on the Greek fleet in the Bay of Salamis. There, under cover of a tight bay, the quality of the Greek ships proved decisive.
What gave the Greeks victory was not glory, empty heroism, muscles or six-pack abs. What gave them victory was intelligence, choosing able leaders when it was vital, and choosing military tactics that well balanced the invader's numbers. There were many Persians, but their troops were no match for the Greek phalanx covered in steel (they didn't fight in underpants, as the film shows!): unlike the Greeks, the Persians didn't wear metal armour, they had shields made of plaited wicker and carried, essentially, archers, slingers, short-spear spearmen and a lot of cavalry. Likewise, the Persians had a lot of ships, but their quality was very poor when compared to the Athenian and Corinthian galleys. The Greek victory was essentially a triumph of technique and intelligence over brute force and numbers. And this movie doesn't tell us about that.

Turgid sequel with a towering performance by Eva Green at its center.
Make no mistake, she dominates this movie and lays scorched earth wherever she goes. The male cast members flex and grimace with all they've got but when Green is on screen she is all you look at.
It's definitely one of the best performances in a bad movie I can recall.

Did they really have to do a second movie?
More of the same but with lack of innovation and talent. The story is predictable and unconnected, the same than the battles.
Stapleton's character doesn't have the same power in screen than 300's Butler's.
Probably, the only thing to save is Eva Green although I think she is walking a path in which she is not gaining points to perform in better future movies.

This is one of these movies which will always have its detractors because it is not historically correct. There are certain movies in which you expect a certain amount of historical accuracy and there are certain movies where you do not. This is one of the latter. You must be out of your mind if you ever expected any great deal of historical accuracy from this movie (or any Hollywood production nowadays for that matter). Therefore it pains me to see the reviews that slams this movie with a one-star rating and moans about how it is screwing with the (their) history. I would certainly not call this a great movie but, as a movie, it is far from the one-star range.
The movie is watchable, it is even somewhat enjoyable to watch but it is not really a great and epic movie. There are lots of action which is one of the good parts. Some of the scenery, especially the naval ones, are quite magnificent even though they are somewhat overdone in the usual Hollywood way. The bow waves make these heavy, wooden, oar-powered ships look like they are speeding ahead at 30 knots for instance.
The action is of the rather gory and blood splattering type. Given all the slow motion scenes with copious amounts of blood slowly floating in the air I would assume this was more out of intention than out of ignorance although the ease by which these ancient swords chopped through bones and necks seemed rather unbelievable. I do not mind blood and gore in my movies but I have to say that the blood and gore in this movie seemed to have taken precedence over the rest of the creative process.
The movie simply failed to inspire the awe that one would expect an epic movie of this type would do. Someone said that the movie played out a lot like a video game and to some extent that is true. I never really felt much for any of the characters when watching the movie. I found myself just waiting for the next action scene. The enjoyable part of this movie is really the action, the scenery and the effects, not the story or the characters.
The movie is watchable, even enjoyable depending on your expectations but far from great.