Spock in a relationship with Uhura...
Gimme a break!!!

Well, I finally saw it and I can honestly say that I was far less offended by it than I was by the hack job reboot of Kahn. And I only cared slightly less about the film than I did the original JJ reboot.
It was a popcorn sci-fi action flick, and I liked Urban and Pine but thought that Quinto should have brought more of himself to the film rather than attempting to channel Nimoy. It was a fair enough impression, but it didn't fit with the rest of the reboot that seemed to care nothing about Star Trek.
Ultimately when Quinto channels Nimoy like that it just gives the viewer the jarring sensation that one member of the cast cared about what came before and forces the viewer to remember that this actually is a Star Trek film.
And that doesn't work in a rebooted franchise that relies on nostalgia, in place of a story, and then kind of mocks the nostalgia.
That is ultimately the problem, Star Trek was a science-Fiction space adventure that was both cheesy and offered veiled social commentary about an idealistic world governed by a strict meritocracy with a strong morality and how that idealism clashes with other species and ideals by both forging alliances and making enemies.
This had nothing to do with that. It is basically an action movie with science-fiction elements and occasional nods to the cheesy fun that Star Trek once was. At it's core it didn't have the heart that lends itself to an engaging plot and character arcs.
And, given that it came after a betrayal, that is after they rebooted one of the franchise's best films and took away most everything that made it so great and fun... I didn't care enough to actually see it until it came on television.
The real issue the reboot thing, for some reason they always take out plot and character development and fill that void with action and it makes the film feel visually appealing yet hallow.

I always loved these type of movies.This one is very adventurous and full of suspans.
Nice one.I've watched it more than 3 times and every time i have the same feeling.
Extraordinary😁!!!!

Last Saturday me and the kids sat down to watch Star Trek Beyond which we received in the mail the day before. In general we liked the movie quite a lot. Plenty of action, good special effects and a not too bad story. However, one thing irked me to now end. They blew up the enterprise…again. Stop destroying the bloody Enterprise in every movie for Christ sake! Been there, seen that done that. It is getting both old and frustrating.
Apart from that it was a good entry in the new timeline movie series. I am not sure what all those people giving it one star ratings and calling it the worst movie ever expected to get? Anyone who has watched the two other movies should be expecting a fairly action loaded blockbuster with lots of CGI in it and that is exactly what we got. Personally I think this is a good thing. I was getting rather bored by some of the previous installments in the original timeline where they almost never fired a shot and tried to talk or reason their way out of every problem they encountered.
The story was not too bad although I have to agree that it did not really advance the story or timeline much. It was more like a TV-show episode blown up to a full feature movie. It worked nicely though as a action story although I would have liked to know more about how Edison transformed into Krall and, although that could be explained by some mutation caused by the alien technology, how he managed to transform himself back to Edison.
The CGI with the alien swarm moving fluidly over the screen and the huge Yorktown station was quite stunning as far as I am concerned. I also liked that the ships, both Enterprise and the Franklin could take quite a bit of abuse before starting to fail. In a lot of the previous movies as well as the TV-shows it took one hit and some console exploded and the warp core went down.
All in all both me and the kids quite liked this installment in the series.

**When theirs rescue mission failed...**
It's not like I'm a big fan of 'Star Wars', so I disliked it. I have seen many space adventure films, but I never felt this series so interesting. I enjoyed some of the 'Star Trek' films though. I know this sequel is not good the previous ones, but for me this look okay than those. Because it was so simple, particularly story wise, and the rest of the film was action and adventure.
No offense, but this series is like the collection of the rejections from other franchises. I mean, look at the cast, most of them are comedians and some of them are the category two actors and the rest are, I don't know what they are, bur decent actors. But these films pulled off successfully at the box office. Not a big impact like the recent 'Star Wars' film or any Marvel's films, but quite an impressive figure knowing the above fact I stated.
From the Taiwanese director who made four 'Fast and Furious' films, handled his best for this. This film tells the story of the captain James Kirk, who leads his ship and crew to a rescue mission to a distant planet where some alien race who had stranded. But when they reach their destination, an unknown space army takes them by surprise and they too take a refuse on the same planet. From there how they plan to escape and to learn who were those attackers, all comes in the next half.
This id full of action adventure. The story was little, but quite neatly developed characters, I mean the new ones with some good stunt sequences. As usual, there's no complaint about the graphics. I mean for the casual viewing, but who knows if you carefully look for the flaws, you might get a few. I suggest you to watch it just for an entertainment, but it might fail to satisfy the die-hard fans of 'Star Trek'. I think overall, it is not a bad film, even the two hours long is not an issue due to the good pace.
_7/10_

Star Trek Beyond is what a summer blockbuster is all about. Read my full review here!
http://www.hweird1reviews.com/allreviews/star-trek-beyond-review

I saw this movie two hours ago and I can't remember how it started. Ah. Diplomatic mission to offer a truce artifact to one of the warring sides from the other. It does not go well. Just a tad shy of 3 years into the 5 year mission and Kirk is bored enough to take a desk job. Screenplay set-up signifying it's all about to get much less stultifying. I don't know enough about camera angle choices to know if that's what makes the film feel disjointed, or the script, or editing chops, but something certainly felt unconnected. I started noticing details I had no business noticing. Everybody's hair is bigger. I watched Galaxy Quest recently, and when Krall showed up I choked on popcorn. In fact, prosthetics needed an above the title billing. Running from intruders in a dark corridor, I could see Uhura's earrings glinting. If I could see those, the enemy could, too. The device designed to End The Universe is too much like Big Hero 6. The space station too much like Elysium. And the jumpstart of a starship too much like Furious 7. One of these days in the near future scenic designers will stop putting skyscrapers on hula hoops in deep space. And it's a space station - where are all the people running to when the bad stuff starts happening? It's a scene device that needs to go. The Bad Dude airship docking station is right out of Independence Day. Can we get a little new here? Visual effects are gooey (literally) with some stuff that may or may not be a cue to the bee reference, and is at one point, squished out I don't know how while Kirk rides a vintage motorcycle in circles. And then the squish hardens. I also don't know how, or what that goo was supposed to keep in or out. Much of this is superfluous, but the story was not interesting enough to make me stop looking around. There are way too many wire bundles, a feature of Star Trek Next Gen Borg episodes. When we finally get the Bad Dude's backstory, it isn't enough. Kirk's bored, Bad Dude is disappointed, and how the hell Uhura survives every encounter requires too much suspension of belief. I also noticed that the guys in the theater were sporting ball caps with sunglasses perched on the brim. Noticing fashion in the cinema is not why I go to the movies. Read this week that Chris Hemsworth has signed on to the next Star Trek as George Kirk. Does not bode well for new better adventures.

Some diehard **Star Trek** fans may not necessarily feel that the Justin Lin-directed third installment of this science fiction/space saga film franchise “boldly goes where no man has gone before” creatively. Surprisingly, Lin (director of two “Fast & Furious” flicks) shows some engaging and intriguing heft in **Star Trek Beyond** as the adventurous exploits of the USS Enterprise crew are likely to stir the collective pot where the nostalgic sentiments of the Star Trek brand from yesteryear bridges the gap to the current cinematic explosiveness of modern-day Captain Kirk and company. Although it is extremely difficult to immediately dismiss filmmaker J.J. Abrams’s resourceful fingerprints concerning the imaginative **Star Trek** (2009) and the thoroughly enjoyable **Star Trek Into Darkness** (2013) he graciously steps aside to allow Lin’s energizing directorial vision to further explore Trek mythology on the big screen.
Essentially, **Star Trek Beyond** is a vibrant cosmic canvas that is expansive in its boundaries of exploration. Visually arresting, well-paced and armed with compelling story-telling and a healthy dosage of curiosity and mystery, Lin manages to stay true to the traditional Trek-oriented universe by incorporating rousing special effects and offering a galactic grandeur of planetary peculiarities and exotic alien races to stimulate the exquisite narrative. Screenwriters Doug Jung and Simon Pegg (Star Trek’s on-screen character Montgomery “Scotty” Scott) incorporate an eye-opening mixture of dramatic edginess, off-the-cuff humor and the cohesive rapport among the cast-mates that have inherited the iconic Star Trek personalities and made these familiar faces from the classic 60’s TV show and previous non-reboot films a revelation in the millennium age of blockbuster sci-fi action adventure.
The plot channels in a sense of challenging malaise for the USS Enterprise’s top officers in Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto). What seemingly spices things up regarding the deja vu space journeys aboard the spacecraft is the questionable and powerful device that Kirk and his crew are babysitting. This powerful tool of destruction is capable of destroying humanity as we know it. In particular, the opportunistic Krall (Idris Elba) is the lizard-looking culprit determined to get his diabolical hands on the corrosive contraption. Naturally, Krall and his menacing minions must subdue Kirk and his crew to achieve success in having this ominous object in his deadly grasp. Krall’s willingness to cripple the USS Enterprise proved to be an ambitious mission fully accomplished. For Kirk and his group the results were disheartening as Krall’s forceful attacks rendered the ship disabled as it crashed on the desolate planet of Altamid. Thus, Kirk and his charges are stranded on his rocky haven with no hope in sight. The harsh reality for the vulnerable USS Enterprise visitors, besides being divided and scattered in all directions on this problematic planet, involved getting into survival mode as the hostile reptilian creatures surrounded them at will.
The aforementioned split of Kirk and his exposed cohorts called for a series of various crisis carried on at different, chaotic spots. Kirk and Russian crew member Pavel Chekov (played by the late Anton Yelchin) were primarily tasked with trying to rescue their colleagues from the claws of Krall and his cronies. Elsewhere, Dr. Bones (Keith Urban) tries to patch up the injured Spock following the aftermath of the ship’s wrecking. Pegg’s Scotty and womanly warrior in alien Jayla (Sofia Boutella) make the valiant effort in trying to reach Kirk in the middle of total ribaldry.
**Star Trek Beyond** has stylized flash and Lin ensures that his pulsating production stays faithful to the Trek legacy. Sure, **Beyond** is not anything innovative or wildly distinctive in comparison to the other earlier entries but it still thrives where it counts in the spectacle of space-aged escapism. The cast is solid as the players–Pine, Quinto, Pegg, Urban, Yelchin as well as Zoe Saldana’s Uhura and John Cho’s Sulu–all demonstrate a suspenseful unity on screen and give the audience an indescribable excitement in this latest chapter that far from disappoints. Elba’s Krall is robustly villainous in physicality and attitude and the alien race featured are interestingly hypnotic in creepiness. Lin, in the same vein as Abrams, is not shy about gift-wrapping his **Star Trek** edition in boisterous, sweeping helpings of scope and whimsy.
Overall, this kinetic outing of **Beyond** practically guarantees that the rebooted **Star Trek** phenomenon will not be experiencing its final frontier any time soon.
**Star Trek Beyond** (2016)
Paramount Pictures
2 hrs.
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Idris Elba, Sofia Boutella
Directed by: Justin Lin
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: Science Fiction/Space and Fantasy Saga/Action and Adventure
Critic’s rating: *** stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) **Frank Ochieng** (2016)

I did not see the first movie pertaining to this story so there is nothing for me to compare it to, maybe this was a good thing for me because I went into it with an open mind. I am always apprehensive when I watch a movie with jumps that are not realistic (flying actors with hidden wires attached) but although such things were included, it was bearable. I thought the actors were believable and they filled their roles as expected. I would watch this movie a second and even a third time because for me the entertainment factor was there. I have watched many movies that allow me to multitask, this one required my undivided attention. In a nutshell, the entertainment, screenplay and acting were all there so I give it at least 5 stars.⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Disappointing watch, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend.
I finally see what everyone is freaking out about this movie. Mostly, it is because it just left all the spirit of the first movie behind and started over.
They made a conscious effort to ditch the goofiness, and magic animals of the first one to do a more gritty and real version, like a DC movie. After those decisions, they also chose to reintroduce actual magic, but mostly for the villains, who had slightly better women's rights(?).
I'll be honest, the movie itself wasn't interesting enough to follow completely. For instance, I know "Mushu" was replaced with a phoenix, but I have no idea what happened to it.
Mulan also is outed much sooner in this, but basically skirts execution about 3 different times because of her accomplishments with a much more laid back atmosphere than it was in the 1998 version.
Despite all the money poured into the movie that keeps it from being a bad movie, it just doesn't feel good. While it is wonderous at times, it just lacks the heart warming charm that one would expect from a Disney movie.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
As you might now, this remake is one of my most anticipated movies of 2020 (list here). I've at least "liked" almost every remake Disney has delivered so far, so I was incredibly excited that 1998's Mulan was getting the same treatment. Niki Caro made it clear this would be an entirely different version of the story we all know and love. A more realistic take on the Chinese tale, one that removes all songs and fan-favorite characters like Mushu, which instantly impacted expectations, varying tremendously from person to person. People who would love a remake quite similar to the original will enter the film already slightly discouraged. However, to everyone who complained about Disney copying their original IP, Mulan might be their best chance to like a remake from the studio.
In my opinion, a remake should have a bit of both. It must keep the original's essence and message while delivering something that distinguishes it from the former. Any remake must always prove the reasons behind its existence. It must have something that makes the viewers think: "I like this part that's not in the original". Aladdin has a new arc given to Jasmine. Beauty and the Beast provides Beast with a better-developed storyline. Even The Lion King, a remake that convinced many people to call it a shot-for-shot (it isn't), presents a groundbreaking visual experience that's incomparable to the original. Therefore, I was genuinely hyped for Mulan and what Niki Caro could bring with her more pragmatic cut...
I can't deny it: I feel extremely disappointed. In my review of the original movie, I mention how epic and cinematic it feels. It was one of the aspects I looked forward to the most in this new version. Despite the beautiful set design and some painting-like shots, this is the first time a Disney's live-action remake loses to its original regarding its visuals. The 2D animation from more than twenty years ago feels superior in every single aspect. There's only one shot in the entire remake that I would put in the original, and I bet it would look and feel a lot more emotionally significant. The action sequences are unimaginative and incredibly disjointed. Except for a few great war moments, most action scenes are packed with excessive CGI, a badly employed HFR (high frame rate), and overediting.
In fact, the editing (David Coulson) is weirdly overworked throughout the entire runtime, cutting too much and omitting sequences that were supposed to significantly impact the narrative. From character-defining moments to simple connections between scenes, it feels like the film is hiding something. I constantly needed to rely on my knowledge of the original to remember why certain moments are meaningful to a character or to the story itself because this remake straight-up removes these moments without replacing them with something else. Even in chronological terms, it's clumsily put together, jumping from location to location without actually showing the characters moving from one place to another.
Finally, as my last remark on the technical aspects, Harry Gregson-Williams' score is partially also a letdown. Like the rest of the movie, there are some nice touches and lovely homages to the songs everyone cherishes, especially Reflection. I had already mentalized myself to ignore the absence of songs because I believed Harry would find a way to replace them with a similarly grand score that I would definitely enjoy. However, Mulan's score fails not only to elevate a single battle sequence but also to deliver that cinematic atmosphere that I was looking forward to so much. I didn't get chills during the entire film. It didn't transform any big character moments. Maybe watching it on IMAX instead of at home might improve my opinion, but I doubt that.
Story-wise, it's a mixed bag for me. Niki Caro promised a more realistic take, totally different from the original, and she undoubtedly accomplished that. This is the furthest from the original any Disney remake has been, by far. From the replacement of characters to an overall change to the main narrative, Mulan is more faithful to the original Chinese tale than the 1998's flick, but that doesn't mean it's better, much on the contrary. The essence and message are there but told through a distinct perspective, which some people will find hard to accept, especially hardcore fans of the original movie. However, I do believe that Hua Mulan still carries the characteristics that made me care about her.
Her courage and bravery to go to war in order to save her father from certain death. Her love and devotion to her family, who she wants to honor. Hua Mulan doesn't want to just be the wife of some random man nor be imprisoned by dated stereotypes. This is all in the remake but told through the lenses of a protagonist who already has everything she needs to lead a nation. This is the main difference character-wise, but one that doesn't affect the nature of the original. However, it impacts the remake itself. While all of this sounds amazing, Mulan sort of contradicts itself by making her main character feel unique and different from everyone else, distancing her more from people than actually embracing her.
Like I already mentioned above, this is an entirely altered version of the story everyone knows. I do welcome every change made, including the removal of Mushu, Cri-Kee, and all of the singing. However, if something's removed, something else has to replace it in some shape or form. Once again, I have mixed feelings. Some additions, like the introduction of Chi and the witch Xian Lang (Gong Li), are refreshing but poorly developed throughout the runtime. The vital energy force is connected to my issue with the "be yourself" message, while the character not only follows a predictable arc, but it diminishes Bori Khan's (Jason Scott Lee) menacing presence.
The ending feels remarkably underwhelming as well. Not only the climactic fight between Hua Mulan and Bori Khan fails to live up to expectations, but it's executed in a visually disheartening fashion. I expected this remake to feel grand, magnificent, epic, and cinematic, just like its original or even better. It's far from that. The acting could also be better. Liu Yifei is fantastic as Hua Mulan, Yoson An offers a subtle yet efficient interpretation of Chen Honghui, and the actors who portray Yao (Chen Tang), Ling (Jimmy Wong), and Chien-Po (Doua Moua) are also amusing. However, Donnie Yeng as Commander Tung and Jet Li as The Emperor are embarrassingly bland, while Jason Scott Lee is visually perfect casting as the main villain, but he's not able to shine.
In the end, Mulan is the most disappointing remake Disney has made so far and by far. Even though Niki Caro delivers the realistic, distinct take that was promised, its execution feels inferior to the original animated film in every single way. Technically and visually, it's the first live-action remake from the respective studio that loses in almost every aspect to the 2D animation from more than twenty years ago. The 1998's movie is far more epic and cinematic than its remake. The disjointed editing is overworked to the point of omitting and skipping through character-defining moments. The action scenes are packed with unnecessary CGI that takes away from the war set pieces, which also look small in scale. The musical score isn't able to replace the songs from the original, overflowing the film with a weirdly empty feeling. Despite Liu Yifei delivering a good performance as the protagonist as well as a few of her colleagues, the acting is pretty mediocre overall. Story-wise, it's a mixed bag. It's an undoubtedly unique version, the furthest that a Disney's remake has ever been from its original, which will instantly upset some and please others. I praise the courage and bravery in producing such a different version. There are dozens of new additions that I sincerely appreciate, but their execution lacks emotional impact, ultimately being decisions inferior to the ones of the original. The message and essence of the original are still present through another perspective, which is the best compliment I can give to an otherwise quite disappointing remake...
Rating: C-

It takes us until the end of this film to realise what the connection is between these people who, with Christmas fast approaching, are having troubles with love lives they have had for ages, have only just started - or just didn't know they wanted at all! Hugh Grant is the Blair-esque British Prime Minister who takes a shine to his assistant "Natalie" (Martine McCutcheon); recently widowed Liam Neeson ("Daniel") has to come to terms with the adoration his drum-learning eleven year old son 'Sam" has for a girl at school who is soon to head back to her American home; Colin Firth's rather wimpish "Jamie" finds that his relationship maybe just takes the concept of keeping things in the family a bit too far - but perhaps hope is on the horizon in Portugal? Meantime, an on-form Bill Nighy is hoping a re-versioned, shockingly tacky, seasonal version of the Trogs' "Love is All Around" will put him and long-suffering manager "Joe" (Gregor Fisher) back on the top of the chart; Emma Thompson is facing a crisis of confidence in her marriage to Alan Rickman - a man who seems to be having a crisis of his own with his office assistant/temptress "Mia" (Heike Makatsch); Martin Freeman and Joanna Page are gradually bonding while acting out an increasingly detailed series of sex scenes for a movie rehearsal and, well you get the drift. The story is peppered with pithy, observational humour that illustrates quite potently the various stages of love and relationships from loved-up ascendency through routine mundanity with all the concomitant tribulations that make us laugh, cringe and occasionally want to weep a bit. I always had a bit of a crush on Andrew Lincoln ever since he was in the BBC's "This Life" (1996) and so his storyline here with newly-wed best friend Chiwetel Ejiofor and Keira Knightley was a bit sad - there are two ways it can go, possibly even three? Laura Linney also features as the overworked "Sarah" who has her own crush on colleague "Karl" (Rodrigo Santoro) but who also brings some seriousness to the proceedings as she is constantly on her phone, at the most inappropriate of moments, but for anything but frivolous reasons (though this story does rather peter out). This is an amalgam that spins the threads together cleverly and entertainingly, whilst still keeping our eyes open to the realities of so many people who find Christmas a joy and/or a pain. Some storylines work better than others, but I suspect we'd never all agree on which we liked best - and that's a testament to the innovative writing and consistent pacing of this drama. I don't know about the Prime Minister's experiences at Heathrow Airport, but I came through there yesterday and can assure you - there were few feelings of love and affection as everyone battled just to get out - with trolley fights that wouldn't have looked out of place in "Ben Hur"

Seen this one several times over the years and still so good, though the whole Colin Firth storyline didn't quite connect but cute nevertheless. Just a great ensemble — Alan Rickman, Liam Neeson, Bill Nighy and Hugh Grant were standouts — with plenty of heart and charm with risqué humor that doesn't get gross. Great movie for both Christmas and Valentine's Day. **4.0/5**

**Bringing together several plots, the film is not about love, but about Love in its most diverse facets… and not always happy.**
Unlike most romantic movies, which stick to a sugary story and follow it to the end, with the invariable marriage at the end, and everything in rosy, this movie seems to care more about love itself. , as a feeling. In fact, there are nine sub-plots involved and each one explores a different facet of love: we have teenage love, we have illicit loves, we have unlikely romances, we have love triangles, we even have a love that blossoms without one or the other. speak the same language… and all during the pre-Christmas times! So I won't waste time sifting through each plot, maybe it's for the best.
The movie could have gone terribly wrong, but the truth is that it works reasonably well. It's not a film where we can like all the characters, obviously many of them are making mistakes in the name of love, but the truth is that the film brings, with all this, a much more human and realistic tone than others of its genre. : who has never made a mistake because they fell in love, or found themselves in love with the wrong person and with full awareness of it? Even so, and despite the merits, there are indeed some subplots that seem underwritten and poorly developed, and others that I just don't understand why they were added. And I'm not in favor of some of the jokes that were being made, there's some humor that doesn't work, even though the dialogue is good and well written.
I lost count of the number of great actors that went into this film. It seems that all the good British actors of the decade decided to book a coffee and show up. Some are more prominent, others not so much. Hugh Grant is one of the highlights of the film and he is really good in the role he has been given, and he plays very well with Martine McCutcheon, who also does well in her role. I also enjoyed the performances by Liam Neeson and his teenage stepson, Thomas Brodie-Sangster (who would later break out as an actor in Maze Runner). It is still beautiful to see the way their characters relate to each other and the intimacy that is created between them. Bill Nighy is funny and irreverent, but I didn't understand his subplot here, and Laura Linney is good at what she does, but I wasn't captivated by the character. The same can be said of Keira Knightley (I never particularly liked this actress). Emma Thompson is better, and she does a good job here. Finally, a small word of praise to Colin Firth, and also to my compatriot Lúcia Moniz. It feels good to see someone from our country shining abroad, and to hear our mother tongue in a foreign film.
The film is not brilliant on a technical level. Betting everything, or almost, on the script, on the performance of the actors and on the very competent direction by Richard Curtis, the film is not particularly remarkable in these points, assuming a standard aesthetic and having almost nothing at the visual level that surpasses the average. There are, however, some good aspects, related to the scenarios and the choice of filming locations, very well selected and used.

Love Actually coulda been somebody; it coulda been a contender. There were scenes and characters I loved, but the movie was all but ruined by the irritatingly bad bits. They could have dropped two entire subplots and raised the quality considerably: I am thinking pf the needlessly crass over the hill singer with the Christmas song competition, and the male fantasy thread about the idiot going to Wisconsin and encountering three shapely nymphomaniacs. The time saved cutting those scenes could have been allocated to Laura Linney’s special needs brother and her infatuation, a plot that just petered out near the end, and to the Emma Thompson character’s marriage, which showed promise but similarly fizzled out with a half-hearted scene at the end. Or they could have given more screen time to Natalie, the prime minister’s love interest, who stole a few scenes and deserved many more.
So it was fun in places and touching at other times, and I can just about see myself watching this star-studded near-miss again, as long as I can keep a finger on the fast forward button.

God only knows what I'd be without you.
London, England, and it's the run up to Christmas, and we are in the company of a number of couples dealing with the joys and problems that love can bring.
We open with a narration from Hugh Grant who tells us that when he is troubled by the hate in the world, he thinks of the arrivals area of Heathrow airport. A place where loved ones greet returning loved ones, a place that indeed showcases a strand of love in its joyous form. He further ventures that when the aeroplanes hit the twin towers on 9/11, as far as he knows, all those phone calls from those sadly involved were messages of love, not hate. Pertinent musings that although somewhat sombre for an opening, sets it up nicely for what Richard Curtis (writer and director) wants to say.
A roll call of fine British and Irish actors, and American Laura Linney, lend their considerable talents to Curtis' ensemble piece. The structure is surprisingly simple considering the number of stories being woven together, the result being that there is sure to be a story in there to either love, or, yes, even hate. Is it sentimental? Of course. Is it as stuffed as a turkey on Xmas day? Naturally. Does it stretch credibility in some strands? For sure. But only the coldest of hearts could truly decry that Love Actually is all around. Very often it's funny too. Curtis, following on from writing credits such as Four Weddings And A Funeral, continues to show himself to be a very fine writer of comedy. None more so than with Bill Nighy's past his sell by date pop star, Billy Mack. There's something for everyone in here, indeed there's likely to be something that many can associate with.
It's a lovely affecting film that should hopefully perk up those that get blue around the holiday season. With perceptive writing, some excellent acting (Nighy, Emma Thomson, Colin Firth et al) and a soundtrack of some worth, Love Actually is a winner. 8/10

'The Nun' is a let down. Based upon the glimpses we kept getting of this character in the preceding films from 'The Conjuring' universe, I was looking forward to seeing a movie about this character. Sadly, it's not a good watch.
Demián Bichir, Taissa Farmiga (surname makes sense, I did think that she looked like Vera) and Jonas Bloquet aren't the worst actors to follow, in fact I didn't mind them, but their performances and their characters are equally forgettable. No-one else makes a mark onscreen.
How Valak is portrayed is the issue, the close-ups really do take the creep factor away - same can be said for when the demons speak too, that village idiot line is very out of place. I do approve that The Nun moves about though, which is better than it largely staying still - à la 'Annabelle'. Longer shots and more silence would've done wonders.
Six releases in, this franchise has been a rather large disappointment. Fingers crosssed the most recent four movies manage to satisfy me.

It looks like they attempted to make an inoffensive horror movie...not really in the PC sense of the word, but in the "we are going to do just enough to get an 'R' rating in an otherwise PG movie" sense of the word.
It's not really frightening. It's not really scary, it's not really gory, and the nun herself is not really ominous.
It just sort of is.
And, really, it could be a lot better.

Not the literal **worst** entry in the series (that laurel still rests firmly upon the crown of _Annabelle_) and there was a couple of cool design moments, like creepy hands busting out of statues, even the acting is of acceptable level. But that's about everything positive I can say for _The Nun_, 'cause this is pretty dang bad.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

The Nunjuring!
When a young nun at a cloistered abbey in Romania takes her own life, a priest with a haunted past and a novitiate on the threshold of her final vows are sent by the Vatican to investigate...
So here we have the latest spin-off from the one time high quality "Conjuring" franchise. Sticking strictly to a formula that will either infuriate or satiate horror genre fans, "The Nun" delivers enough creepy boo-jump tropes to keep it above average. There's plenty of roaming about dark corridors and churchyards, with lanterns our only prominent saviours from the terrors of the dark. If, and it's a big if, you don't mind that Corin Hardy's film isn't trying to raise the bar for horror, and is in fact staying safe, then there's a decent enough good time to be had here. If you be one of those who constantly moans about bringing nothing new to the table, don't bother with this one, in fact, think of something new to bring to the table yourselves then...
The set-pieces hold up well enough (buried alive shiver shiver), the atmospheric dread only occasionally punctured by Abel Korzeniowski's bombastic score. The story is interesting enough, such as why the entity is bringing terror to the abbey, what is the link to the "Warren" family, and the backstory axis for Father Burke (Demián Bichir) brings another demonic layer to the plotting. While talking about "bringing something new to the table", for the first time in this series we actually get a bit of humour, mostly from Jonas Bloquet's likable Frenchie character. Taissa Farmiga holds the lead well, where she has a very appealing visual reaction style that will serve her well if she stays in genre mode. While Maxime Alexandre's cinematography (low lights and fogs) is a big improvement from "Annabelle: Creation" and is tonally compliant.
This formula has been done much better previously, such as Hammer's take on "The Woman In Black", but even then they were going on about new stuff being brought to the table etc etc etc. It is what it is, a boo-jump haunted house (buildings) picture that is there for those who like such things, who buy into it on that level. Is this a great film? Absolutely not, but it works on its intended terms and any expectation of a new branch of horror is going to have you crying over spilt blood. 6/10

I wanted to like this movie because it's connected to Conjuring movies, but it was awful, even from the start it was obvious.
It was a dull, boring movie with cheap jump scares. The only reason I'm giving it 4 and not 3, because it was shot nicely and acting wasn't that bad.

Horror is baaaaack!
And with a vengeance.
The Nun is not for people that don’t like horror movies or burnt out on them. Don't expect character development either. Don't expect to be shock like you were when you watched The Exorcist. I’ve read several critic reviews were they just don’t get it. They use words to describe it like “using every trick in the horror trope” or “predictable”, “throwing the kitchen sink at”, or “not enough character development”. Well forget what you heard because there is more bite to this movie than you’d expect.
Okay, so we begin with a spooky opening sequence where two nuns are fighting to save humanity from a malevolent presence that is about to enter our world. One is dragged into a room and the other commits suicide by hanging. Suicide is a sin, right? Makes you wonder what type of evil is powerful enough to destroy Catholic nuns?
Being the beginning of The Conjuring movie universe, this story begins like this, Father Burke (Demién Bichir) is summoned by the Vatican to investigate the suicide of a nun at The Abbey, a castle located somewhere in Romania. Apparently Father Burke has a trauma and a shameful past after having failed to save a teen from an exorcism he performed. Makes you wonder why The Vatican would send a priest like Father Burke on such a dangerous mission. The Vatican doesn’t send Father Burke alone on this task though. They assign Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga), who hasn’t yet taken her vows. A nun that hasn't taken her vows yet, and not your typical nun either. She's contrary to the average nun. She seems so innocent.
Father Burke and Sister Irene are taken to The Abbey by a local delivery man, Frechie (Jonas Bloquet). (You may remember Frenchie as the first exorcism performed by The Warrens from the original The Conjuring. Lorraine Warren has the painting of The Nun at their home and references it in the film.) Sister Irene was chosen to go on this assignment because she experiences visions, these visions provide the information needed to uncover what actually occurred at The Abbey.
The Abbey has been the site of a malevolent force locked away for centuries. The Church took over The Abbey and placed a congregation of nuns to pray 12 hours a day to keep the evil force in control. However, after WW2 bombing weaken the structure of The Abbey, the evil locked inside of it found another way to escape, and using the guise of a nun, slowly grows in strength causing terror on those around it.
Yes, The Nun is a supernatural survival horror installment of The Conjuring universe. You don’t have to be a die hard fan of the horror genre in order to be scared. Yes, there is a lot of the same tropes from the most popular supernatural horror movies and that is because this is how demonic infestation happens.
Director Corin Hardy and screenplay writer Gary Dauberman do wonderfully.
What this film gives us is tricky camera and visual effects that showcase how the demon works. We find out that the demon’s name is Valak–an ancient demon from Hell that was summoned by the count performed sacrificial rituals.
If you are expecting character development then you’re not going to find it here. This story doesn’t need a lot of characters at all. You don’t need a lot of information about these characters because Valak is the only character this story is about.. One minute he’s behind the character’s back, the next his shadow appears on the wall, he reanimates dead corpses and even manifesting animals and the usual superhuman strength as well as taking on human form. He ghosts the characters as well. It’s always interesting to see how the director and screenwriter pull off these visual effects.
Father Burke character plays like a detective searching the castle for any information he can use to exorcise the demonic spirit from the world while Sister Irene uses her visions to lead her to the truth about what occurred at The Abbey as well as discover anything that she can use to send the evil spirit back to Hell. If you like Ash from the Evil Dead horror series, then you’ll like Frenchie because he is the outsider in all of this providing necessary dark humor. Frenchie isn’t afraid to use a shotgun to blow off the heads of a couple of deadites disguised as nuns.
What also makes this film enjoyable to watch with a group, is the pacing. There are enough slow moments for you to make jokes about the characters or the visual bombarding your senses.
I give this film an enthusiastic 7/10 for its creepy mood and intense disturbing images. And those squeamish people, no worries. There isn't a lot of gore.
Definitely a great popcorn horror flick to watch in the dark with your friends. Definitely worth the movie ticket. You won't be disappointed as long as you keep what I've said in this review in mind.
If I were to rate its place among the other films in The Conjuring universe, I would rate as follows
1) The Conjuring
2) The Conjuring 2
3) The Nun
* 4) Annabelle Creation

Overall I liked The Nun it was a spooky fun movie with some pretty good shots and scenes (lighting, camera angles, and such). The transitions from one scene to another was a bit off and the story overall had a more fantasy tone over the more grounded and realistic tone The Conjuring and Annabelle movies had. Much of the story felt like it was just forced to setup a shot or scene which does hurt it. It isn't a perfect movie but I'd watch it again. It is like Indiana Jones meets Silent Hill. None of the character actors felt out of place or superficial either, I really appreciate that. Everyone felt believable and natural to their roles and environment, not forced.

Appallingly cliched. Slow and boring. Not even the Conjuring hype could save this film. It moves forward at a painful pace, brings nothing new to the table, and is not even scary.

Despite being warned that a group of monkeys about to be released from a lab by some anti-vivisectionists are laced with disease, they let one of them out anyway and next thing it's a month later and "Jim" (Cillian Murphy) wakes up in hospital all by himself. There's not a soul to be seen, anywhere. He can't spend the entire film wandering about naked, so finds some scrubs and goes exploring - gradually gleaning information about the plague that led to the evacuation of the cities and to his current isolation. It's not as if he had anything to do with the release of this virus, but he now has to deal with it's consequences. Luckily he encounters "Selena" (Naomie Harris) and "Mark" (Noah Huntley) who save him from a marauding mob (think "Omega Man" from 1971) and their risky adventures begin trying to find what's left of humanity and hopefully safety. A wind-up radio broadcast gives them some hope, and off they travel with newfound friends "Frank" (Brendan Gleeson) and his daughter "Hannah" (Megan Burns) in their black taxi (so of course, it takes a circuitous route) to Manchester. Their arrival visits tragedy on the small group but also introduces them to the last bastions of military security - under the command of "Maj. West" (Christopher Eccleston). Pretty swiftly they realise that very little of this new scenario is much safer for them and their thoughts turn to leaving...! This is quite an effective apocalyptic tale of corrupted science and morals and uses, for most of the first section of the film, dialogue sparingly allowing the eerie photography and soundtrack of a largely abandoned London to set the scene for us. Thereafter the writing isn't the best, but the benign sense of menace exuded by Eccleston and the confidence of both Harris and the young Burns work well at giving us an almost claustrophobic sense of peril, especially as we drift to a denouement that is cleverly constructed to make us think. It's bleak and threatening at times, not without the odd dark humour and in the end presents us with quite an intriguing look at humanity in many of it's less attractive, more visceral, guises. Danny Boyle and Alex Garland keep a few twists for the tale at the end, too, and Murphy holds it all together in an understatedly potent fashion.

"28 Days Later" is a British horror movie directed by Danny Boyle and starring Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris. The film tells the story of Jim (Cillian Murphy), a courier who wakes up from a coma to find London abandoned and overrun by rage-infected humans.
The film's opening sequence is one of the most iconic and powerful in horror movie history. Jim wakes up in a hospital room to find the world he knew has disappeared, and the eerily deserted streets of London make for an unsettling and ominous backdrop.
The film is expertly paced, with a gradual buildup of tension that keeps the audience on the edge of their seats. The infected humans are terrifying, fast-moving, and relentlessly violent, and the film's use of sound and lighting only heightens their impact.
One of the standout features of "28 Days Later" is the excellent acting by Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris. Murphy delivers a convincing performance as Jim, a man struggling to survive in a world gone mad, while Harris shines as Selena, a tough survivor who has learned to navigate the dangers of the new world.
The film's themes of survival, loss, and the resilience of the human spirit are powerful and thought-provoking. As Jim and Selena make their way through the deserted streets of London, they encounter a range of characters, each with their own story of survival and loss.
The film's cinematography and visual effects are also top-notch, with haunting and memorable shots of a deserted London and intense action sequences that will leave you breathless.
Overall, "28 Days Later" is a masterful horror movie that sets the bar high for the genre. The film's excellent acting, pacing, and visuals make for a truly unforgettable experience. I would rate "28 Days Later" a 8 out of 10.
Written and Reviewed by RSOliveira

One of the best zombie movies ever made with many of the genre's "firsts:"
1. The first that begins with an actual explanation of what created the zombie plague.
2. The first to introduce a fast-moving "infected" horde, ratching up the tension significantly.
3. The first to infect people instantly (within seconds).
It also has one of the best movie scores, one that rivals those from John Carpenter classics "Halloween" and "The Thing." It is striking how the music can elevate a movie or a scene.
The biggest issue, which to be fair, is not something Danny Boyle and his crew could have foreseen, is that it was shot in low quality SD, making it nearly unwatchable on large screen modern HD or 4K TV's.

_28 Days Later_ was made on a very small budget in the early days of digital cinema, so, yes, in retrospect, it does look a little bit like it was shot on a Nokia 3310, and yes, it is heavily responsible for the bilious deluge of zombie movies we got in its wake, which we are only now finally recovering from - but it's so **good**.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

It started off as rioting. But right from the beginning you knew this was different...
28 Days Later is directed by Danny Boyle and written by Alex Garland. It stars Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Megan Burns, Brendan Gleeson and Christopher Ecclestone. Music is by John Murphy and cinematography by Anthony Dod Mantle.
When animal liberation activists break into the Cambridge Primate Research Center, they come across a scientist who tells them that to release these chimps would be insane. They have been injected with a test serum known as "Rage", and it's highly contagious and spreads easily and quickly. Ignoring the warnings, one of the activists opens a cage and is attacked and bitten by a chimp and rage quickly spreads among the group...
28 days later...
The amazing thing with Danny Boyles's 28 Days later is that although it owes a huge debt to the likes of George Romero's zombie films, and John Wyndham and Richard Matheson's writings, it still feels fresh and exciting. Film is quintessentially British, as evidenced by the rightly lauded use of a depopulated London for the starting point to the terror, yet there's an earthiness to our small band of survivors. These are flawed characters that are ill equipped to deal with the infected implosion, there's nothing remotely Hollywood about these people or the landscapes that frame them (CG is minimal, where hand-held digital cameras are the order of the day).
There's a realistic feel factor that is rarely seen in other films of this ilk. Yep, sure there's implausibilities, but with the infected creatures running at a fair old clip, becoming scary creations in a stark stripped back land, there's too much fun being had - and nervous tension being burnt - to even begin to start nit-picking. Besides, the last quarter alone is a lesson in energy fuelled horror as the survivors, having seemingly found a safe house, find that monsters aren't merely confined to the infected human kind. It's a cracker-jack of a finale, bloody and bloody frantic, all backed by Murphy's simple but totally potent musical arrangements.
It's easy to see why America made it a monster hit at the box office, after just making a small profit in the UK, film went to America and made it big. Americans, you have to feel, enjoyed watching something raw in a sub-genre of horror that was at the time reliant on Romero rediscovering his mojo. Worldwide the film made over $70 million in profit, and those are the kinds of figures that speak volumes. The success ensured a sequel would follow, where Boyle and Garland bowed out of the main chairs and into producers roles for "28 Weeks Later". It's not as raw as "Days", but it's gorier and itself also a fine "infected" horror movie, and certainly a worthy follow up to what Boyle and Garland clinically created in 2002.
A great cast and premise get down and dirty In a sharply executed infected based horror. 8.5/10

**mild abstract spoiler ahead**
My feelings about this movie may very well be extended towards Boyle's movies in general : solid direction overall, but events did not fail to go from situational and behavioral realism to sudden heroical action nonsense.