**_Looks great, awesome themes, tedious storytelling_**
A renowned poet and his much younger wife (Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem) live in a huge old house in the sticks. He has writer’s block while she’s restoring the house after a fire. When unannounced strangers show up (including Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer), it naturally has a negative effect on the beautiful woman and her world.
“Mother!” (2017) was helmed by Darren Aronofsky, who’s known for artsy stuff like “Requiem for a Dream” and “The Fountain,” but he’s perfectly capable of doing more conventionally entertaining flicks, like “The Wrestler.” This one falls in the former category, although the first act is fairly conventional and compelling in the manner of, say, “What Lies Beneath” or “Cold Creek Manor.”
Yet it gets increasingly incomprehensible and tedious. You could say it starts like a Roman Polanski film, in particular “Cul-de-sac” and “Rosemary’s Baby,” but ends with the surrealism of Luis Buñuel. You’re thinking maybe home invasion à la “Desperate Hours” before the proceedings become unfathomable. Part of the fun of a movie like this is trying to figure out the symbolism and meaning. In this case, you’ll need to be up on biblical material and ecology, otherwise you’ll be lost.
So, I’m in the middle on this unique work. It’s professionally made, Jennifer is beautiful in her prime, it begins interesting enough, and the themes are unforgettable but, as a standard viewing experience, it gets dull and annoying. I never want to see it again, yet I’ll probably be pondering the metaphors the rest of my life. I respect it, but can only recommend it to those who are intrigued. It's not for everyone.
The movie runs 2 hours, 1 minute, and was shot in Montréal and Québec.
GRADE: B-

Let's be honest, this is a home invasion movie trying to push itself off as an art house flick with a higher IQ.
It kind of lies to you and really hate it when movies try to pass themselves off as more than they actually are.
You can't blame the actors here, it's all the director and the studio. They wanted controversy, they wanted drama, they wanted critical praise and the wanted people to talk about it....
...but in the end, it's a home invasion movie and it wouldn't have had any of what the studio and the director wanted if they just made an honest film.
But then, if they were honest about what they were making, it probably would have done better, it would have made more money. People wouldn't have been so confused about it, the critics would have panned the hell out of it and ten years down the line it may have had a cult following.
Instead, you have a crap movie trying to pass itself off as art house...and all the pretension that comes with that.

Nuts.
'mother!' is an enjoyable watch, even if I didn't fully understand what was happening - I had a rough guess in my head throughout, but I was off given what I've read elsewhere online since. I'm fine with that though, I felt entertained which is all that truly matters.
Jennifer Lawrence is great, as is Javier Bardem. Those two are very much the stars of the film, though you also have Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer in noteworthy roles. Excellent casting for all four. The film, meanwhile, looks superb, from the effects to the cinematography.
It's quite unsettling and wild to watch it all unfold, in a positive way though. One of the weirdest watched no doubt, and I've seen 'Rubber' (2010)...

I'll start by saying, maybe I'm not the demographic this film was intended for.
That said, I spent 95% of the movie with a confused expression on my face, and asking myself "what the hell is this?" I walked into the theater expecting something good--not necessarily great, but enjoyable. This movie was confusing, inexplicably violent, never got to the point or fleshed out a story/plot, and left me feeling very uncomfortable throughout the film's entirety.
I really DON'T recommend this movie. It seemed like a total waste of time. The plot was non-existent. Confusing. Disturbing at times, without any explanation, context or reason.
I'd give it 1 star, only because the sets were really well done. Other than that not worth even one watch, I think.

_mother!_, a movie title with no upper case letters. Well _mother!_, I'm glad you saved those capitals because I have a question which is going to require a lot of them: "WHO THE FUCK WAS THIS FOR!?"
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

This film defies being rated on a scale of 1 through 5 - it's truly almost impossible to do so. I want to rate this a 5 and I want to rate this a 3 at the same time. Both would be wrong though so I'll just settle in the middle. Aronofsky has given us many brainsick films in the past, but this is on a whole other level. Remember the batshit crazy climax of _Requiem for a Dream_? Multiply that by 50 and you get the batshit crazy climax of mother! - and that is a *huge* understatement.
I don't really want to talk too much about the film's plot or the finale as not much about the film is known to the public at this point. It's absolutely worth it to go into this film as blind as possible or maximum effectiveness. All I'll say is that the _Rosemary's Baby_ influenced poster and marketing so far is a big curve ball - it has nothing to do with that film although Polanski horror elements are clearly an inspiration to Aronofsky here.
I do want to praise three specific elements of this film that worked the best for me: (1) The sound design was absolutely magnificent. There is no score to this film - not quite sure what Jóhann Jóhansson did here - but the sound design is eerie as hell and supremely memorable. (2) The production design is next level. The house in this film is basically the co-lead (you'll see what I mean when you watch it) and it evolves drastically over the course of the film (again, you'll see what I mean when you watch it). Excellent art direction that I haven't stopped thinking about all day. (3) The performance from Jennifer Lawrence is harrowing as she really gave herself to this film and to Aronofksy's vision, but the performance that stuck with me is the one from Michelle Pfeiffer. She really embodied her character and even though she's only in maybe the first 60% of the film, she left a deep impression on the rest of it as well. Her character is crucial to the film and she injected such mystery and gravity to the events that followed her exit.
Will soon watch this again and hopefully have more meaningful thoughts. It's hard to say too much right now when hardly anyone has seen the film yet, but believe me, there is a lot to be said about _mother!_

Well overall a nice feel-good movie. It one of those movies that you spin up and just sit back and relax. The characters are quirky and fun. Plus the plot is simply great. Had been putting it on hold for quite a long time but glad I watched it.

'The Intern' is a comedy/drama movie, which was directed by Nancy Meyers in 2015. The movie takes place in Brooklyn, New-York. The first thing, which attracted me, was the cast – Anne Hathaway and Robert De Niro as the main characters. This duo seemed to me quite curious, so I wanted to find out what the plot is. Another reason why I decided to watch it was the place. A lot of movies and series are made in New-York, and I like when a movie contains breathtaking views of this city. As for me, it makes movies truly esthetic.
'The Intern' is a story about Ben Wittaker (Robert De Niro), who is 70 years-old. He has a family (son and grandchildren), which live quite far from him, and he’s a widower. He has plenty of time and desire to do something new. Ben finds a vacancy in online-store of women’s clothes. There he becomes an intern, and his duty is to help Jules Ostin (Anne Hathaway), a young woman who runs this business. I think, the most fascinating thing about the plot is relationship between Jules and Ben. She’s young and not experienced, he’s wise and he has rich background in business. No matter, they have a huge age gap, they become good friends. Ben supports Jules, not only when it's about work, but in her private life. Jules's family is about to fall apart, and she thinks, if she hires a new director, her family will be fine again. It's a choice between her work, which is extremely important for her, and her family. What should she do? Can this decision save her relationship with her husband? It's a tough decision, but with Ben's help she makes a right one.
‘Experience never gets old’. This is the general idea of the movie. I guess, it means that experience's always needed, it's always modern and it's always useful, no matter, what sort of experience it is. I love this idea and this movie in a whole. It's so kind and also dramatic. Acting makes you laugh, cry and then laugh again. Especially the very last scene makes you feel so calm and peaceful, and that'll be your emotions after watching the whole movie. I've seen 'The Intern' about 6 times, and every time characters make me relive these feelings.
I think, if you want to watch something easy, warm and heartfelt, you should certainly watch this movie. 'One of my favorite movies this last year was Nancy Meyers’ The Intern. They’re not considering that for the Oscars even though I think Robert De Niro gave one of the best performances this year in that movie. I thought the script was actually one of her best', said Quentin Tarantino and added that it's Oscar-worthy.

> A film that differentiates the young and old generation.
I would definitely say it is the director's best film. I have liked her other films, but this is a lot different from them. I mean it was well written screenplay with much better understood the contemporary world than just focusing on the relationships as usual. So the addition of digital world stuffs made all the difference and I completely enjoyed it. Don't think it would be another 'The Internship' as I initially thought, but slightly it is and much better everyway.
You are going to agree with me that the film's posters or the trailers were not very impressive as what the actual film did to grab our full attention. The two hours films are always a concern to me, but when a film like this runs for that long, I can even sit for another half an hour. Anyway, with this story and its runtime, the pace was incredible. When there's something interesting is going on, we forget to focus on the flaws and enjoy our time, which is what I exactly did in here.
This is not a comedy where you're going to laugh openly loud, it is a comedy in the sense of the set of characters the film has. I mean, the story is about the digital business and most of them who are into the computers are considered as geeks. So theirs world is nothing, but just hooked to their works and forgetting the actual world around them. Even for the someone in the next room, they tweet. For them to remind only they've changed, not the physical world and that's where our main character who is old and wise influence the younger generation people.
So the actors were undoubtedly the best thing apart from the direction and the story. The 73 years old Robert De Niro still impressing with his extraordinary character display. I don't know whoever was in mind when it was written, but this role perfectly fits none other than him. And then there's Anne Hathaway on the opposite side who equaled with De Niro with her part.
From the narration point of view, it started with DeNiro's, but quickly around in the middle it took a circle to cover others as well. And then comes from the professional to the personal life topic when it was developed and brought a small family who were affected by the workaholic mother. So if you enter it expecting a comedy, probably you won't disappoint with what it delivers against your wish which is a heartwarming drama with some emotional moments. Surely recommended, especially the youngsters who're addicted to the digital world!
8/10

Легкий фильм посмотреть на выходных. Хорошая идея фильма, но банальный и предсказуемый сюжет. Отличная игра актеров.

**A cute, sweet and tender film, which imports an originally Japanese story to the USA and which promises to make many children insistently ask their parents for puppies.**
I'm not a fan of dogs... in fact, I'm one of those people who never had dogs, and that's why I didn't develop a great admiration for these animals, despite recognizing that they are excellent companions and can make a difference for many people, in different situations (for example, as part of police units or as guides for the blind). But the truth is that I feel every day how uncomfortable dogs can be, if they fall into the hands of careless owners, or those who do not teach them properly: they howl when alone, they make a lot of noise when other animals pass by, they run to sniff and lick other people without their owners paying attention if they want to have contact with their animals and, worse, they defecate anywhere without their owners taking care to collect the droppings. Yes, the education of dog owners in Portugal is non-existent in most cases. The fault, of course, lies entirely with the imbecile human owners, but it helped me not to harbor sympathy for these animals. The fair, in these things, always pays for the sinner.
However, even the human being with less affinity for dogs will recognize the value and the moving beauty of this film, loosely based on a true story that took place in Japan, before the Second World War, and which has already given rise to at least one Japanese film, in 1987. What this film does is to take this Japanese story and transport it to the United States, telling it as if it had taken place on US soil, but keeping a lot of elements, implicit and discreet, that link us to Japanese culture (the dog breed, the dog's name, even the martial arts). I have nothing against remakes and I have to admit that Hachiko's true story deserved a movie... but the truth is that there are a number of similar reports around the world attesting to the loyalty and unparalleled attachment of various animals to their owners. So, if the idea was just to take Hachiko to the US, maybe it would have been better if the script had created a new and entirely fictional story, albeit inspired by the real Hachiko (and other dogs).
Having made all these considerations, I believe that we owe a tribute to Richard Geere for another exceptionally well done and very palatable work, in which the actor manages to monopolize our attention in a friendly character, that touches our emotional side. However, and if we exclude the three dogs that participated in this film and played the role of the protagonist, there is virtually nothing more to say about the cast! The remaining actors only say what they are told to say, without adding anything truly positive, nor receiving interesting and developed material for their respective characters. This includes Joan Allen, who appears to have dropped in this movie by parachute.
On a technical level, there are several positive aspects to be highlighted, such as the pleasant cinematography, the good choice of filming locations and the intelligent use of the sets and some visual and sound effects. It's not a flashy movie, but it does everything it can to touch our hearts and can even feel corny and sentimental, especially towards the end. I handled it very well, but of course not all people will like it. The choice of animals for this movie was really good, and they are just cute and adorable in the extreme. And we can't forget about that incredible soundtrack, based on sweet piano melodies. It all helps this movie to be exceptionally sweet and suitable for family evenings. However, I leave a note for parents: if you don't want your children to ask you, in an insistent way, to adopt a puppy, don't let them see this movie.

This movie is wonderfully written, it's one of my favourite films and I cry each time. Based on a true story of devotion the dog keeps going back to the train station to meet his owner who had a heart attack and died so is obviously he is not coming back, he becomes the train station mascot and people raise funds to help look after the welfare of the dog. it's lovely but you will need plenty of soft tissues to wipe away the tears.It's a classic.

Amusing film.
'The Emperor’s New Groove' doesn't, in my opinion, feature a great plot, amazing music or incredible animation. All of that is all fine, though it's the humour that makes this film tick. It isn't belly laugh worthy but from start-to-finish I was amused by the funny nature of it.
The premise is very silly, which works in its favour, with a load of things that don't quite add up, it even references that itself in the third act. That just adds to the fun, they know it's a mindless 78 minutes and make it work.
The reason it comes out so well is thanks to David Spade and John Goodman. Spade is terrific as Kuzco, bringing the perfect wit to the self-serving emperor. Goodman is the overall star though, I thoroughly enjoyed him in the role of Pacha. Patrick Warburton is also decent as Kronk.
It all makes for chilled out viewing, you'll have a good time if you just sit back and enjoy it - as I did.

Great for the kids. It's a classic. I'm not into cartoon movies. I prefer acting with real people.

A classy and stylish adaptation of the ancient riches-rags-riches tale of "Cinderella"; a young girl who finds herself little more than a skivvy in her own home. When her evil stepmother receives an invitation to the Palace for a ball in honour of the Prince; she and her two selfish and spoilt daughters pull out all the stops. They leave our heroine alone at home where she encounters an old hag. Next thing, after a gloriously colourful spree of magic spell-weaving, she is dressed in ultimate finery and heading for the palace in a glittering carriage drawn by the finest horses in the land. The rest of the story is the stuff of true fairy tale legend. The animations are, once again, magnificently detailed and the score featuring "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo" is great fun too. There are, for my money, too many talking beasties - particularly the mice. The squeaky voices, slapstick comedy (especially "Gus") and accompanying wind instruments grate after a while; the characterisation of Cinderella is so heavily endowed with saccharin as to be syrupy. That said, the story is well told in an an engaging fashion with some good human characters (particularly the King) and some stunning creative imagery.

This might have done better had they just stuck to a plain old witch-hunting adventure film, rather than embroil us in a rather dull familial back story that really just clutters the whole thing up. If you are familiar with the fairy tale, you will know that "Hansel" (Jeremy Renner) and sister "Gretel" (Gemma Arterton) were enticed to the house made of sweets by an evil witch. On the menu, luckily they are able to turn the tables on her and it is her who goes into the oven rather than them! Ten years on, and our siblings are legendary and regularly summoned to rid other villages of their menaces. It's on one such mission the they discover that an impending Blood Moon is going to empower an whole coven of witches who have already stolen a dozen innocent children to use as ingredients in a broth. Can they thwart this (actually quite appealing) plan? Well along the way they make some friends and some foes before quite a spectacular, if I felt rather disappointing, denouement. There is an hint of chemistry between Renner and a distinctly underwhelming Arterton, Famke Janssen fares fine as the nasty "Muriel" and when it works, it's quite a pacy and enjoyable fantasy. There's way too much dialogue though, and when we start to delve into their past, I started to delve into the Maltesers. It's fine, and actually does look better on a big screen as the cinematography and visual effects are good enough. It's just a missed opportunity to darken this myth and deliver something just a little more evil! Watchable, just not memorable.

***Kick axx continuation of the sylvan fairy tale about slaying diabolical witches***
In Medieval Germany, Hansel & Gretel (Jeremy Renner & Gemma Arterton) are now adults and formidable witch slayers, not to mention considered heroes in the community. When numerous children turn-up missing, they trace the problem to an unholy celebration orchestrated by a grand witch (Famke Janssen). Fetching Pihla Viitala plays a redhead villager accused of witchcraft.
"Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" (2013) is a dark fantasy/action/comedy/horror that takes the German fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm and envisions events about twenty years later. Imagine the excellent “Season of the Witch” (2011) meshed with the fantasy elements of the fable and you’d have a good idea of this movie. “Dracula Untold” (2014) and “Snow White and the Huntsman” (2012) are good contemporary associations, but “Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters” is noticeably superior.
This movie just kicks total axx from beginning to end with Gemma jaw-dropping as the take-no-sheet heroine and Renner rising to the challenge. The witches are ee-vil and worthy of nothing other than immediate slaughter, which is basically the siblings’ modus operandi. There’s a lot of thrilling action and gore, some of it so over-the-top it’s amusing; there’s even a terrible troll. And the movie LOOKs great. If you like dark woodsy adventure and don’t mind fantasy, don’t miss out on this excellent film.
The film is doesn’t overstay its welcome at 1 hour, 28 minutes; and was fittingly shot completely in Germany.
GRADE: A

This is a movie which you watch for the action and the special effects and pretty much nothing else. As such it is a excellent movie. The original story of Hansel & Gretel is essentially only used to boot this movie. The movie itself plays out when Hansel & Gretel are adult witch hunters.
The movie is pretty much action all the way. It is fairly violent and goory action at that. It is not a movie for the kids. To me this is an advantage. I do not think I would have liked it as much if they had dumbed it down to a standard PG-rated Hollywood creation. I really enjoyed the hard-ass Hansel & Gretel duo kicking witch ass in so many way.
The special effects are not bad and the medieval yet kind of modern weaponry that Hansel & Gretel swings around are quite cool looking. Not very believable perhaps but then neither are witches so… The witches themselves are also fairly cool. Especially the witch-gathering near the end of the movie is indeed a grim (ha ha) collection of freaky creatures.
I was not too thrilled about the idiot law keeper. His utter stupidity bugged me throughout the entire movie. I really whished they would have dragged out the end for him a bit more. Well he did meet a suitable end at least.
Overall, I enjoyed this movie a lot. If you though this was to be “just” a Hansel & Gretel movie the you are probably going to be disappointed. I knew more or less what I went for so I was just enjoying myself. I was surprised at the level of gore, exploding heads, troll-squished humans etc… but, as I said above, I think it was a good thing that they did let it be done in the way the producer/director obviously intended for it to be made.

Nice fantasy and action movie. Interesting to see again Gemma Arterton and good FX but nothing else to remark.

This is probably my favourite role from Johnny Depp. Based on Irving Washington's wonderfully spooky tale, he is the scientifically minded Constable "Ichabod Crane" despatched by that other Tim Burton regular Christopher Lee to investigate a mysterious murder in the eponymous sleepy Dutch settlement. When he arrives, he discovers that the murders are being attributed by the seriously superstitious residents to the "Headless Horseman" who has returned from hell to seek vengeance upon those who betrayed him back when the United States was fighting for it's independence. It soon emerges that there are plenty of sordid and evil goings on amongst the Van Tassels - Michael Gambon, a super Miranda Richardson and Christina Ricci and their sleazy, creepy neighbours ably depicted with some great performances from Richard Griffiths, Ian McDiarmid and especially, though briefly, from Michael Gough. The story is cleverly layered and moves quickly, knitting the threads well and leading us down a path of jealousy, betrayal, witchery, and greed with the surroundings - an eerie, fogbound forest providing an excellent setting for this feature that is atmospheric and actually quite scary at times, too. I really enjoyed this - and it's still worth watching 20 years on....

Well, it has a great cast, and they all do a great job.
But, it's really Tim declaring to the world that he is too lazy to read...again.
Much like he was with Batman and absolutely every other adaptation that he's made. I had a girlfriend when I was an undergrad that absolutely totally loved a lot of books...but only ever actually read "The Mists of Avalon."...she was an art major too.
So, it turns into Tim Burton "artistically reinterpreting" something that he has never read and thus really doesn't know how to interpret in the first place.

_**Great Spooky Flick for the Fall Season!**_
"Sleepy Hollow" is Tim Burton's stylish 1999 take on Washington Irving's classic tale about Ichabod Crane and the Headless Horseman starring Johnny Depp as Crane and Christopher Walken as the Hessian horseman. The story is set in 1799 and involves Crane, a constable from New York City, going to the Dutch hamlet of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of gruesome murders where the victims are decapitated.
Whether you like Burton's films or not, who can deny his talent for visuals and overall production? This guy knows how to make a film LOOK good, that's for sure. As for Depp, he portrays sleuth Ichabod in a very human manner, e.g. he's afraid of spiders and amusingly passes out on occasion.
There are four things that really impress me about this picture besides Depp: (1) I love the spooky Fall atmosphere; it obviously takes place sometime in gloomy November. (2) I always thought the concept of the headless horseman was insipid, but "Sleepy Hollow" depicts him (it) in such a horrific/supernatural fashion that he's actually scary, not to mention skilled with weaponry and virtually unstoppable. I wouldn't want to run into him in a dark alley, or anywhere else for that matter! (3) Miranda Richardson was almost 41 at the time of filming, but -- man -- is she gorgeous! Nuff said. Christina Ricci also looks great and so does Claire Skinner in a small role. (4) "Sleepy Hollow" lacks the goofy vibe that some of Burton's films possess; the material is presented in a respectable, generally serious manner, albeit not as ultra-serious as, say, Hammer horror.
Speaking of which, "Sleepy Hollow" strikes me as a modern Hammer film more than anything else. Perhaps that's why Burton gave Christopher Lee a cameo. Needless to say, if you love Hammer (and who doesn't?) you'll appreciate "Sleepy Hollow."
The last half hour or so is packed with action so if your attention starts wandering, don't worry, it picks up big time. The plot's a whodunit and it gets kinda convoluted so you'll need to pay attention (or rewatch it). Not that you HAVE to because "Sleepy Hollow" is such a cinematic feast you can enjoy it even if the complications of the plot lose you.
There's nothing else to say except to re-emphasize that "Sleepy Hollow" is definitely the ideal spooky flick for the autumn, or any time really.
The film runs 105 minutes and was shot entirely in England with studio stuff done in Yonkers, New York.
GRADE: A-/A

Decent watch, might watch again, and can recommend.
While Johnny Depp and Christina Ricci do carry quite a bit of the movie, there is quite a lot else going on here. The horseman does tend to dominate much of this story as the original does.
I don't feel there was much to the original fable of the Headless Horseman so pretty much any take you do on it seems fine: though maybe an Easter Bunny version would push some boundaries.
This is about as weird, but more because it has to create a weird atmosphere, then add Depp doing weirder stuff than the weird people can handle, despite believing in ghosts which he all but fights with them about. Ichabod Crane being a smart, if cowardly, constable is interesting as he literally has the "hero" role painted on him.
This is surprisingly more of a mystery than any other type of movie. The action is usually intense and brief when it happens, and much of the movie is spent looking for rational explanations until ocom's razor wins out.
This is a good movie and a decent mystery, but I do feel it's just awkward in too many cases for most people to be on board.
I expect Headless Horsemen and mystery fans to enjoy this though.

It is you, Ichabod Crane, who is now put to the test.
Sleepy Hollow is directed by Tim Burton and co-adapted to screenplay by Andrew Kevin Walker and Kevin Yagher from the The Legend of Sleepy Hollow written by Washington Irving. It stars Johnny Depp, Christina Ricci, Miranda Richardson, Marc Pickering, Michael Gambon, Jeffrey Jones and Casper Van Dien. Music is scored by Danny Elfman and cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki.
1799 New York, and Ichabod Crane, a timid but forward thinking detective, is sent to the way out village of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a number of decapitations.
A perfect match of director and actor to the source material, Sleepy Hollow unfolds as a fun filled creeper of such visual and aural pleasures, it's a wonder nobody thought to put the combination together earlier than 1999. Story is familiar, though with a few changes, and although some of the comedy ends up a bit sillier than is tonally appropriate (really, Ichabod, stop pushing the effeminate angle to breaking point), film runs along at a fair old clip and never wants for period devilment. It's never really scary when Walken's headless horseman isn't part of the scene, but it's very unlikely that Burton or Depp were aiming to soil underwear anyway. More a case of charming you whilst caressing the tingler on your spine. A case of style of substance? Yes, to a degree, but the source story still comes through the lavish eye candy painting to reveal itself proudly.
Burton had created a world of Gothic mysticism, a blend of Hammer horror values and Brothers Grimm bad dreams, a land of swirling mists and tall shadows, where black, red and purple are essential colours. From the quaint duck pond in the centre of the village, to a creaky old windmill, there are visual treats galore here - which are enhanced magnificently by Elfman's foreboding rumbles. Costuming is first rate (Colleen Atwood), as is Lubezki's colour lensing and Rick Heinrich's production design. The cast are led superbly by Depp and appear to be pitching performances at just the right tone, such is the director's want. Although Ricci is sadly underused in a key role, and we could have done with more Richardson since she is wonderfully catty and yummy in equal measure. But with bona fide thespian quality in the support ranks (joining Gambon and Jones are Michael Gough, Ian McDiarmid and Richard Griffiths), picture never falls short of scene enhancers.
Period peril with a glint in its eye, Sleepy Hollow is a delightful nights entertainment by the fire. 8/10

et us get this over with right away. I do not think Johnny Depp was the right person for playing Ichabod Crane. Maybe I am too influenced by seeing him in Pirates of The Caribbean but I just do not think he was the right person for this role. He really did not work for me. He is to whimsical and gesticulating to be taken seriously as a scientifically inclined crime investigator as far as I am concerned.
Too bad since the story itself and the movie was quite promising. As is often the case with Tim Burton’s work the movie has quite dark tone which I quite like. The various scruffy and suspicious characters that Ichabod meets right away as he enters the village inn fits right into the eerie atmosphere.
Unfortunately Ichabod’s inclination for science clashes with the rest of the story which is undoubtedly supernatural. It makes the movie not really have a distinct direction but instead waddle with one foot in each camp. I would have preferred if the movie either had gone all science and in the end Ichabod had exposed an evil but perfectly human adversary by scientific means or if it had gone all supernatural and Ichabod was an adept at exposing (exorcising) supernatural beings rather than a scientist.
Having said that, the movie was still a decent enough evening flick and fairly enjoyable. The footage and scenery are well done as one would expect from Tim Burton. It is not exactly a special effects loaded movie but what is there is fairly okay, at least for a movie from 1999.

There old retired C.I.A. agents who are to be the best in the biz. Now the C.I.A. is after them and they will find out why.

A great ride of a movie. Bruce Willis is perfectly cast as Frank Moses and downplays his character like no one else could. Picture any other star in this role and it's a completely different movie. And where else are you going to see Helen Mirren dressed in an evening gown pumping out hundreds of rounds from a machine gun bigger than she is? Exquisite. Oh, and an honourable mention for John Malkovich. Just nuts!

**RED's deep cast of experienced talent make a somewhat typical movie a little more special.**
RED follows a rogue group of highly skilled lovable, zany agents (like The Losers or The Expendables), but this time, the team is made up of retired assassins that show the young guns they still have what it takes to kick some tail! The story has been told before, but it doesn't keep Red from being fun. The cast is filled with veteran actors that seem to have a blast working together and blowing stuff up. The film's highlight was John Malkovich playing in his sweet spot - a crazed unhinged psycho (Con Air vibes). Bruce Willis leads the team with his usual cool tough, guy character and does great. Even though RED doesn't do anything that hasn't been done before, the charming cast and characters make Red an entertaining spy action movie.

"Ambrose" (Dougray Scott) is a disavowed IMF agent with a grudge. He is determined to procure and release a deadly hybrid "chimera" virus onto the streets of Sydney so he can push up the share price of the company that wins his auction to acquire it; and that can also manufacture the antidote "Bellerophon". It falls to "Ethan" (Tom Cruise) and his inventive gang of regulars to come up with a way to thwart this plot. To that end, he recruits the brassy thief "Nyah" (Thandiwe Newton) who gets to play a real love interest with "Ethan" whilst feigning one with "Ambrose" to get close to him and learn his plans. On the face of it, this is an ideal screenplay for this franchise, a sort of "James Bond" theme with plenty of location cinematography, action scenes and the odd gadget. Sadly, though, Scott is just not very menacing as the baddie and the story is really under-developed. The characters appear to be almost grinning their way through the unremarkable dialogue, and John Woo creates then recreates the action scenes as if it were just some sort of cartoon feature. The standard of the production is high, the staging of those action scenes is strong and well photographed, but the story just doesn't ever really get into gear and at over two hours, it's a pretty weak and insipid outing for just about everyone. Not a patch on the first film.

After quite entertainign Mission Impossible I the second installment turned out ... terrible. As if the screenwriters didn't know how to fill the 2 hrs with action the overuse of heroic slow motion scenes is horrible. You almost might need a barf bag if you can't stand slo-mo every five seconds... for 15 seconds. I am amazed they did decide to push on with more M:I movies after this one, then again, these turned out much much better even if it would be hard to beat that lousy piece of crap of a movie.