The first underwhelmed me, but this one straight-up bored me. Again, of course seeing Hunt climb a mountain without a harness is impressive sure. And I even quite liked the idea behind the villain of the piece (though even that angle was woefully underdeveloped).
Even setting it in predominantly Australia was enough to grab my attention, and that's saying something cause I'm pretty biased when it comes to that. I hear tell that _Mission: Impossible II_ is the low point in the series, and that at least is encouraging, because if anything afterwards is much worse than this one, I don't know if I'll be able to make it through to Rogue Nation.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid if possible._

This is a decent enough mindless action movie with a lot of over the top action but it is not really a Mission Impossible movie. The movie starts of reasonably well being somewhat intelligent with a bit of Mission Impossible feel to it. It is actually almost a bit slow at times. However, for the second half of the movie it really degrades into a classical John Woo, over the top, action feast with all pretense of intelligence and any true Mission Impossible feel gone. John Woo is not the right person to make a Mission Impossible movie.
As with the first movie if it would not have been labelled Mission Impossible I would probably have given it a higher rating since it is a decent enough, mostly braindead though, Hollywood action movie. However, I have higher expectations from a movie labelled Mission Impossible.
Tom Cruise is quite okay as Ethan Hunt. Dougray Scott is okayish as the bad guy. Sometimes he projects the right big bad and mad bad-guy attitude but sometimes he is just silly and just as over the top as the action scenes. He is supposed to be a mastermind but he comes out as a thug a’ la a not so intelligent drug baron in many scenes.
The action scenes? Well, they are classical John Woo material. Fast paced with a lot of stunts and things that go boom. They are also, as expected, hugely over the top and unbelievable. They provide a enjoyable visual experience but, as I wrote above, they are not really what I would expect from a Mission Impossible movie.
The romance between Hunt and Nyah is the typical Hollywood, let’s throw in a sexy girl and some superficial attraction, which develops from get lost to I love you in the matter of a few hours of contact, between the lead character and the girl. Meh!
I get the impression that the people that have created these movies so far have not really watched a single full season of Mission Impossible.

Where were the owls again?
_Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the appeal._

A delightful movie for children and families. Interesting twists on some of the figures of childhood, however, they are very likable characters. The Story is well thought out and pulls you in, I actually felt concerned that good would not triumph over evil. Great ending, but it kinda leaves you wanting more. Another Dreamworks hit, sure to entertain the family.

The Sandman. The Easter Bunny. The Tooth Fairy. Santa Claus. You know their names. But did you know that they were secretly the guardians of childhood, brought together by the Man in the Moon as a sort of folkloric Avengers? Well, now you do.
They don't seem to have a lot to do however (aside from their respective day jobs, of course), until their long-vanquished nemesis The Bogeyman returns to threaten the world. To shore up their ranks, the Moon summons forth another figure of legend: the plucky winter sprite Jack Frost. Jack and the Bogeyman share a common problem: they're not believed in anymore, and have faded from public view. But Bogey has found a way to regain his power, and this spells doom for the other Guardians (and, presumably, childhood innocence).
It's a decidedly high-concept start, as most CGI fare tends to be, based on an in-progress series of books by writer and filmmaker William Joyce (who wrote and directed the utterly charming, Academy Award-winning short animation The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore, which I can't recommend highly enough; bring tissues). There's some mucking-about with the established tropes: each of the Guardians have different names (North, Bunnymund, Toothiana, Sanderson Mansnoozie, Pitch Black), and visits to each of their strongholds reveal Yetis do the day-to-day work at the North Pole (elves are instead well-meaning but useless idiots) and Easter eggs are grown like flowers, among other revelations. I'm sure you can discern how everything turns out in the end. Surprises aren't legion in films of this type; like any fairy tale, it's all in the telling.
There are a few issues with the film, and they're mostly structural: normally I'm not one to carp about world-building (and this is clearly a film with eyes set on a sequel), but the first half seemed to drag on a bit too long for me. These are archetypal characters; one of the reasons they're used is so that we get the idea at the merest glance. The second is that the villain of the piece, Pitch, feels like a missed opportunity. He's a mite over-exposed and a bit too solid. This is, after all, the Bogeyman. Employing a bit more of the Jaws principle and amping up the menace and threat that he poses may have instilled more fear in the youngest audience members, but how many of us were forever traumatized by the flying monkeys of Oz, or Willy Wonka's psychedelic tunnel ride? Kids today have it easy.
Quibbles with the building blocks aside, the execution of what's there is sterling. Character designs are unique and witty, from the Australian warrior rabbit (Hugh Jackman) to the silent, squishy Sandman to the tattooed, inexplicably Russian Father Christmas. Jack Frost, whose design seems informed by the classic Rankin & Bass stop-motion film, is well-voiced by latter-day Star Trek captain Chris Pine, and Alec Baldwin brings his gravelly voice to bear with a hearty bombast on the sword-wielding Cyrillic Santa. Jude Law is seductively mischievous with his turn as Pitch, and Isla Fisher is a bundle of nervous energy as the flighty, OCD Tooth Fairy.
The film itself is gorgeous, with cinematographer extraordinaire Roger Deakins serving as visual consultant (other animated films for which he's performed this role are Rango, How to Train Your Dragon, and Wall-E; I think that's enough to say if you're making an animated film, bring him on). I can't speak for the depth of the 3D-ification, but rather than suffer through a dim, dull image, you'd be better served to witness the full, gorgeous colors of each of the Guardians' realms.
Guardians is a cut above most animated fare, but with a bit more tweaking (and perhaps more involvement from executive producers Joyce and Guillermo del Toro, each of whom have immaculate fairy-tale credentials), it could have been a classic. The film we have, though, is an enjoyable ride, even if it doesn't have the staying power of its legendary characters.

Enjoying story inspired in 4 of the major "legends" for kids in the anglosaxon culture.
Great animation and development of characters for a simple and clean story with the needed touches of humor and action.

"Tarzan" is rescued from the clutches of a tiger and raised in a colony of gorillas. As he gets older, he bonds with the animals around him and ultimately, with a few reservations from the alpha "Kerchak", becomes an internal part of the family. Enter a group of British explorers determined to see gorillas and our hero see "Jane" for the first time: the love story begins. Their guide "Clayton" betrays them all - he wants to sell the apes for £300-a-head in Europe and a colourful, perilous battle of "civilisations" ensues. The animations are a bit simple, vey angular - but the characterisations are much stronger. It isn't just a love story with an happy ending; we are taken on their journey of self-discovery as they both introduce the other to their own, drastically, different worlds... Great vocal efforts from Brian Blessed, Minnie Driver and Nigel Hawthorne add some extra fun and lots of pace to this action adventure complemented by a few good songs from Phil Collins.

**A Disney production that promised much more than it delivered.**
Like any child born in the last few decades, I lived with Disney movies as a child. However, for some reason I don't remember, I was never attracted to this movie and I ended up never seeing it until today. Having seen it, I am really unimpressed.
The biggest problem I felt in this film is the poverty and lack of inspiration of the script, which is a loose adaptation of the original story, written by Edgar Rice Burrough. The characters aren't the best designed, there are a lot of annoying characters around here (Jane's father, the gorillas, and particularly Terk and Tantor, a very unhappy side character duo) and even Tarzan is poorly designed and uninteresting. The prevailing feeling is that the writing team didn't know what to do with the task at hand and improvised something.
To make matters worse, there are a lot of logic problems in this movie. For example, there is no exact notion of time that passes, so we are left with the idea that Tarzan learned the first human words in an almost instantaneous way. Another thing that doesn't make a lot of sense is the way Tarzan himself doesn't recognize the physical differences between himself and the gorillas he lives with, as well as the immediate similarities between himself and Jane. At some point, he will have seen his own reflection, will he not? I don't mean to say that the film is bad… but the truth is that I feel that Disney has already given us much better and more interesting work.
Overall, I think the voice cast didn't do a bad job, with everyone involved doing their best and doing everything that was asked to the best of their ability. Personally, I didn't really like some of the options. Tony Goldwin, for example, voiced the film's central character in a relatively mediocre way, but his voice has nothing particular or charismatic about it (well, the character has been stripped of any charisma). For me, it was Glenn Close who stood out the most, but with very little to say, and Rosie O'Donnell is the one who pissed me off the most, with a very unpleasant voice.
The strong point of the film is the elaborate visuals and the animation, very well executed thanks to the high quality CGI. I'm not sure, but perhaps this was one of the first films by the studio to use computer animation on a more regular basis. What is certain is that the look of the film is exquisite, it is a little different when compared to the older films of the mid-decade. And if it is a fact that Disney films have, in general, a very particular attention to the soundtrack and the songs, this film maintains that characteristic, having hired Phil Collins to write and sing several songs. Unfortunately, and even though the film won the Oscar for Best Song for “You'll be in my Heart”, I didn't really like any of them and I find the film's sound particularly bad.

'Tarzan' is one of those films that I had always assumed I had seen, though evidently I hadn't and this was my first time watching. It's a cracker!
Phil Collins' music is tremendous, it truly adds a lot to the film - "Son of Man", which I already knew about, is a great song which works very well with the montage. Some of the editing is rather sharp, while the animation is pleasing on the eye.
Tony Goldwyn (Tarzan) and Minnie Driver (Jane) suit their respective roles nicely, as do Glenn Close (Kala) and Brian Blessed (Clayton). Rosie O'Donnell is the one I enjoyed most, as she portrays Terk - which isn't really a massive character, yet O'Donnell makes her memorable.
It does feature things you've seen from earlier jungle based films, like 1967's 'The Jungle Book' and, as expected yet still amusingly, 1997's 'George of the Jungle'. The early scenes in-particular, which rely firmly on Collins' music - from the midway point it's more level, whilst also taking its own route with this type of story.
I'm interested to find out where the two follow-up films go.

Tarzan swings through the iridescent jungle swiftly, ending Disney’s Renaissance era with wild exuberance. Two worlds, one family. An innocent little boy, approximately four-years old, was escorted for the first time to a cinema complex. Politely requesting a bucket of sweet polystyrene popcorn, he walked into the dimly lit auditorium scavenging for an appropriate seat that would maximise his film experience. The trailers initiated, suppressing the inner excitement of the full feature that was yet to commence. Then, it happened. The Disney logo emerged. It was time. A family surviving a shipwreck, colonising an uncharted jungle whilst the emphatic voice of Phil Collins powered the narrative. A leopard savaging a baby gorilla, then brutally slaying the English couple, leaving only their infant son crying. His sorrowful echoes reverberating through the rainforest, until a female gorilla acquires him. Adopting a human child. Tarzan. The four-year old, naive to the cruelty of nature, was transfixed by the colourful animation. The plethora of emotions. That pure Disney magic. It was the commencement of a new-founding love for cinema. An adoration he could never shake off again. Yes, that four-year old, was me.
Subjectively speaking, Tarzan is more than just another Disney classic from their animated library. Even more than just an adaptation of Burroughs’ epic. It was a trigger. A sweeping adventure that upheld every emotional resonance possible. The brooding romance between explorer Jane and fully-adolescent Tarzan. Thematically presenting ostracism through two interconnected species, conveying the “Two Worlds, One Family” conflict within Tarzan. Who we are raised to be and who we are truly meant to become. Comedic buoyancy through the supporting characters of Terk and Tantor, supplied with their own catchy rhythms. Dark antagonisms through Clayton’s treacherous hunting techniques, viewing gorillas as merchantable assets. An exploration into the vivacious rainforests of Africa. All culminating to form a wonderfully effervescent coming-of-age tale. One of Disney’s most overlooked, for sure.
The art direction is the strongest of the Renaissance period, combining traditional hand-drawn animation with pioneering three-dimensional backgrounds. Often incorporating visual montages to steer the narrative into the intended direction. Watercolour backdrops to enhance the naturalistic environment. Bright character designs to contrast the darkened background. Sublimely directed by Lima and Buck. Then, Phil Collins just being the legendary musician that he is, providing the tale with apathy and soul. The “Two Worlds” anthem, “You’ll be in my Heart” and “Strangers Like Me”. Mancina’s score actively preventing the characters from singing and turning into another unnecessary musical. As I said, subjectively I refuse to liken Tarzan to just another animation from the “House of Mouse”. It was my first cinema endeavour after all.
However, objectively, there are narrative stumbles. It’s the breeziest story, condensing an epic plot into less than ninety minutes. The most noticeable consequence of this, is the rushed editing on certain segments. The introductory two minutes is a whirlwind of emotional storytelling that, unfortunately, holds minimal foundations. The montages of Tarzan growing up also lacked narrative heft, providing nothing more than visual delights. Goldwyn, Close and O’Donnell had insufficient power within their voice roles. Although Driver and Blessed were delightful. And, as much as I adore the song, the repetitious reprises of “Two Worlds” throughout minimised lyrical diversity.
The entire story is told faster than a shotgun firing, but I refuse to shake my undying adoration for this feature. Tarzan was the film that made me the cinephile that I am today. If I hadn’t received that euphoric pleasure from the cinema back in ‘99, well, these amateur reviews probably would never have been written. Ever. So for that, Tarzan and Disney have my eternal gratitude.

This is a movie that you watch for two things and two things only, the action and seeing your old favourite macho-guys on the screen again. For me, it was mostly the action since some of these old guys are really…well…getting old. At least Stallone, Dolph and “Schwarzy” starts to get well past the best before date for these type of roles. Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme actually didn’t look that old and Bruce Willis had a role where his age didn’t make him seem too misplaced.
This movie is pretty much like the first The Expendables, that is some minimal story to build a whole bunch of action against. And action there is, lots of it. All of it quite well done although not always very realistic of course.
In general it seems like the so called “critics” liked this movie more than the previous one. This I do not understand since I thought they were pretty similar and if nothing else, that the previous one was the better of them with a slightly more coherent and plausible plot. For instance, in this movie, old buddies where popping up out of nowhere saving their behinds with some pretty “magic” display of firepower which felt like the scene was just put in there to get the actor into the movie…which it probably was.
I’m not complaining though. I wanted and expected an all-out action movie and that was what I got. Loads of action, macho-dialogue and cheesy jokes (I quite liked Schwarzy’s comment about that Smart crapmobile that they drove around inside the airport). Oh, and of course loads of references to other movies (Rambo, Terminator…) and stuff as well. They even managed to get a quote from Duke Nuke’m in there.
I enjoyed myself immensely when watching this movie.

Jokes aren't funny. Scene logic is stupid. It´s a movie about guys with plastics in action!

**Prince of Persia has plenty of flaws but ultimately is a great action adventure film full of fun and worth your time.**
Prince of Persia is a great action adventure with elements of Indiana Jones, The Mummy, and Tomb Raider. While it doesn’t rise to the heights of those films, it’s still an entertaining film filled with beautiful set pieces, excellent action, and a unique story. There are a lot of complaints about this film, such as casting choices and mediocre CGI, and while some of that might be valid, if accepted for what it is, Prince of Persia is a ton of fun! While a surprising choice for the role, Gyllenhaal commits to the action and stunts and makes Dastan a likable hero. Ben Kingsley is always excellent in whatever he does, and so is Gemma Arterton. I really do enjoy this movie and would recommend it to anyone who loves a good, fun adventure film.

Never played the video game, but I enjoyed this film suitably.
It has flaws, though there's enough to like about 'Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time'. I rate Jake Gyllenhaal as an actor, while I don't think he's perfect for this role I did enjoy his performance all in all. The special effects are neat, especially for the dagger. The support cast are satisfactory, Alfred Molina being the standout behind Gyllenhaal.
The premise is a pretty fascinating one, but I don't feel there is enough there for a near 2hr production. It felt, a number of times, that the story was going round in circles and overextending itself in order to fill the run time, there are many times where 'A' runs from 'B', 'B' finds 'A' instantly, 'A' gets away. In many different guises, but it kept happening.
Could've been far greater, but I still come away from viewing this fairly positively.

It's very, very bad but I guess I was in just the right mood for it because I actually kind of enjoyed watching _Prince of Persia_. I can't pinpoint even a single good thing about it, whereas I can immediately conjure many of its failings, but I just remember having some fun.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Sands to the future.
I guess ultimately it is what it is, a Disney backed video game adaptation of the blockbuster kind.
In truth it works just fine and dandy as a family fantasy adventure, with swords and sandals - shields and sarongs, all in abundance. There's the mythical and the magical, the swish and the swash, the HD photography a treat for the eyes. The leads are pretty, likable and energetic, and even though it consistently reminds us that it is based on a video game (jumping and rolling, jumping and rolling), the choreography is niftily arranged and there's a lovely old fashioned feel to the story; which works in that wonderful Sinbadish way.
Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and if one was so inclined? One could deconstruct the faults of the production with the same clinical impact of that achieved by Ben Kingsley's (Sir) wallet when it hit the floor after this paycheck was deposited. It should be viewed in the spirit of how Alfred Molina plays his character, with tongue in cheek and a complete understanding of how to have a good time with popcorn fluff. Prince of Persia is forgettable come the end credits, but at least it was a fun date. And for that we are truly grateful. 7/10

It appears that I am going to disagree with a fair number of people when I say that I quite liked this movie. Sure, if you expect some deep story with a lot of moral cleverness in it you are going to be disappointed. This is an interesting story but one that hangs together by a fairly fine thread.
To me it is a decent enough story that is propelled by a decent enough action and absolutely wonderful scenery. Yes, I agree with everyone saying that it is a bit of a B-story. It has many issues and barely hangs together at times.
However, if you try to ignore that for a while and just try to view it as a piece of, fairly fast paced, visual entertainment, well then it hits the spot quite well. It is frequently beautiful to watch. The action sequences are not bad and the story is, if nothing else, certainly not the usual thirteen to a dozen B-movie repeats. The acting is, well, also generally of B-movie quality but it is not downright bad and, once I got in the right mindset for the movie, it did not disturb me.
On the whole I quite liked this movie but I guess you have to be a bit of sci-fi fan, with an emphasize on visuals, to do so.

> One liner, somewhat richer, but only a decent entertainer.
A sci-fantasy directed by the Wachowskis of 'The Matrix' fame. Theirs lowest point ever as the filmmakers, but still not that bad flick. The movie lacked in many areas, and one of those is failing to have at least one stunning fight/war scene. I know it was only the beginning and there will be a sequel, maybe ends as a trilogy, but the story was very weak for an intro movie.
Looks like one-liner, precisely to say kind of similar to 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. I mean in a thin idea, the whole story takes place. Something like a space expedition for a chosen one, hopping from a planet to planet, seeking answers and protection. The title character, Jupiter Jones, played by Mila Kunis, with the help of the Caine Wise (Channing Tatum) takes a risky venture when their lives were threatened. Finding who's behind and other truth brings the end of the narration, which runs for just over a 2 hour.
Performances were okay, but kind of doubt their inclusion in the project. Mostly the cast was the younger ones, maybe except, Sean Bean. Many of them are only the recently emerged stars. So it was a big responsibility in a big budget movie and they did it. But the movie should have had at least one senior artist. The graphics were somewhat rich, and again the absence of the quality scenes and stunts lets the movie fall.
6½/10

**Mission: Impossible 3 gives the franchise something more than explosions and cool gadgets. It gives the series heart and family.**
Mission: Impossible 3 carried the heavy burden of trying to ground the fantastical world of Mission Impossible with its insane stunts and extraordinary gadgets after the franchise took it all a little too far in MI2. JJ Abrams took the reins, simplified the plot to Ethan Hunt’s struggle to rescue his fiancée, and filled the cast with excellent talents like Michelle Monaghan, Phillip Seymore Hoffman, Keri Russell, Simon Pegg, and more. While the stunts and gadgets that define the franchise were still in the film, they were not the focus. Instead, MI3 concentrated on developing Hunt’s character and his struggle to protect his loved ones from his work. This movie frequently finds itself at the bottom of the Mission: Impossible rankings, but I think it’s one of the best in the series and gave the franchise the heart and direction it needed to become the box office behemoth it is today.

Despite the introduction of the always annoying Simon Pegg, this is an huge improvement on the last instalment. It sees the now retired, loved-up "Ethan" (Tom Cruise) coaxed out of retirement to deal with the menacing arms dealer "Davian" (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who has just bumped off one of the IMF's finest as he tries to offload the devilishly toxic "rabbit's foot" - a weapon with devastating potential. The initial part of the operation goes smoothly enough, but when his prey escapes his clutches, "Ethan" soon realises that he is going to be used to obtain the weapon - else his girlfriend "Julia" (Michelle Monaghan) is going to be toast. PSH is a super baddie here, very much in the less is more school of menace, but not afraid to get a bit brutal when called for. The story itself is all pretty routine, there isn't much jeopardy throughout, but the action scenes are more natural and less choreographed than last time out, and PSH also does add quite a lot of extra gravitas to the proceedings. It also features one of the more assured performance from the usually wooden as a tree Jonathan Rhys Meyers with Ving Rhames having a more substantial, and quite entertaining, role too. I'm not sure what anyone can really do about the inevitability of the conclusion - we just know these films are going to keep on coming, but this one from the established writing team of Kurtzman and Orci keeps moving well with plenty of gadgets, body morphing and action to pass the two hour mark comfortably.

I would say it is the strongest entry of the first three Mission: Impossible films (the only ones I've seen to date). Even a decade later, it's strengths are still that which the franchise has always been known for, and its weakness are much the same. Much more akin plot-wise to the first film, _M:I:III_ has the one advantage over its predecessors that it's villain is much stronger than any we have seen before. Though arguably not the primary antagonist, Seymour-Hoffman (RIP) is actually pretty terrifying as international arms dealer, Owen Davian.
That said, while this third entry is certainly the most engaging thus far, it still had me checking my watch before the end of the movie, so I can hardly give it a glowing review.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Good movie!
Admittedly I was a little surprised how little happens across the opening hour or so, I checked the run time out of curiosity at around the 70 minute mark and was surprised that I only had 20 minutes left. To be fair, that does at least show the film doesn't drag at all. It's entertaining enough, I just thought more was coming.
Michael Keaton is the star of the film no doubt, very amusing stuff from him as the titular character. I only knew he was in this as I saw him in the trailers for the new one and could tell he would/will be a lot of fun in the role. Winona Ryder is also good value, the rest are all fine, at worst. The music, sets and effects (esp. the stop-motion!) are also pluses.
No better time to get this logged given the sequel is out now. I did enjoy 'Beetlejuice', hopefully the same can be said about 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice'.

Prepare yourself, embrace the spooky vibes, and dive into the world of the iconic movie Beetlejuice.
Beetlejuice is a beloved cult classic that captivates viewers with its mix of cheesy comedy and thrilling moments, all brought to life by the genius of Tim Burton. Michael Keaton steals the show with his phenomenal portrayal of the titular character, leaving you tempted to chant “Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice” for a taste of his creepy yet humorous presence.
Wynonna Ryder and Catherine O'Hara shine in their roles, adding a breath of fresh air to the film. The chemistry between Lydia and Beetlejuice is unforgettable, blending the eerie with the emo in a timeless dynamic.
Gina Davis delivers a standout performance, solidifying her status as a true legend of the screen. The male cast members also excel, providing some of the most hilarious and memorable scenes in cinematic history.
The film expertly balances the realms of the supernatural and the mundane, drawing viewers in without going too far into the fantastical. Beetlejuice's lasting impact is evident in the annual Halloween costumes and themed events, building anticipation for the upcoming sequel. It's safe to say, we all have a soft spot for Beetlejuice.

"Beetlejuice" will undoubtedly be difficult to surpass certainly in terms of pure visual imagination which incorporates some sets skewered at desperately crazy angles and outrageously cluttered administrative areas and waiting rooms where you can literally sit in monotonous silence for months at a time while listening to muzak. Tim Burton excels marvellously behind the cameras to deliver what is probably one of the most quirky films to come along in recent decades. His unique visuals strive to achieve an almost Georges Melies quality to them as Burton places all manner of incredible visual marvels on the screen and they are given an added dimension with generous splashes of garish colour all over the place. This film is unquestionably an amusing and appealing piece of entertainment and it is difficult to see how it could possibly be bettered and anyone would be certifiably insane to even try.

This is so insane… I love it!

Thin on story but the practical effects are good and Michael Keaton is a lot of fun even if he doesn't fully arrive on screen until the 40-minute mark. My feelings more or less remained the same from the last time I saw, probably 10+ years ago. I probably don't place this in as high regard compared to others, but still was entertained. **3.5/5**

Inventive and Fun take on the Afterlife.
RELEASED IN 1988 and directed by Tim Burton, “Beetlejuice” chronicles the story of a couple (Alec Baldwin & Geena Davis) who accidently perish after moving to a quaint Connecticut town. They find themselves sentenced to “haunting” their former house where they try to scare the new wannabe swank couple out (Jeffrey Jones & Catherine O'Hara), but they find that their Goth daughter is more curious than scared (Winona Ryder). Michael Keaton plays the eponymous madcap “bio-exorcist” while Glenn Shadix is on hand as the new couple’s interior designer.
This was Burton’s debut on the silver screen and the first half is hilarious entertainment mixed with some interesting insights on the afterlife. The movie puts its best foot forward, but the second half isn’t as compelling and I think the title character is more annoying than amusing.
THE FILM RUNS 1 hour & 32 minutes and was shot in beautiful East Corinth, Vermont, and (studio) Culver City, California. WRITERS: Michael McDowell, Larry Wilson and Warren Skaaren.
GRADE: B+

Tiptoe Through the Tulips.
Insidious is directed by James Wan and written by Leigh Whannell. It stars Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Ty Simpkins, Barbara Hershey, Lin Shaye, Andrew Astor and Leigh Whannell. Music is scored by Joseph Bishara and cinematography by John R. Leonetti.
The team behind "Saw" and "Dead Silence" bring us "Insidious", one of the finest exponents of the haunted house movie in the modern era. Of course that doesn't count for much with those not particularly struck by the formula, but it does seem to be one of the very few horror sub-genre movies to come out with better than average appraisals.
Of course it's not perfect, few films, especially in horror world, can stand up and come through unscathed by critics and fans alike, yet for the like minded adults who can set the mood and channel themselves into the boo jump and creepy atmosphere world wrung out by Wan and Whannell, then this is the bomb.
Much has been made of the shift in the last third, where the film brings in Astral Projection as its reasoning for the pant soiling previously unleashed. Undeniably the film runs away with itself, goes too far and the last 15 minutes are a chaotic mess of bold ideas and inadequate staging. However, it's interesting to note how often the haunted house movie in recent times gets accused of not bringing something new to the table, something thrown at the wonderful "Woman in Black" that followed "Insidious"down the pipe. Here the makers offer up something different, true, it hasn't worked in the way they or the hardened genre fans would have liked, but personally I found on second viewing it is forgivable. It's like riding your favourite Big Dipper, you enjoy the spins and upside down scream moments, but just tolerate the flat standard drive stretches of track while your heart tries to steady its beat.
When "Insidious" is hitting its heights it's utterly thrilling and unnerving, paced to perfection, it builds from whispered voices on a baby monitor to entities invading the home of the poor Lambert family. The mystery element is strong, just what do they want? Why is son Dalton in a coma but the medical boffins have no idea why? How come the entities have followed the Lambert's even when they move house? The latter of which is refreshing to see in the screenplay, it's a logical move but so often it's not done in other horror movies. The jumps are nicely placed throughout and a number of scenes are so freaky they get under your skin and stay there for some time - seriously, I don't think I'll ever be able to listen to "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" again without my blood being chilled. The use of photographs and mirrors bring the goose flesh to the skin, while Lin Shaye's arrival as the paranormal physic, and the subsequent use of a gas mask, keep things ticking on the freaky deaky scale (though once the gas mask scene hits it's where the pic slightly falls away).
It borrows ideas and takes its tonal cues from other horror movies, definitely, and the second half doesn't live up to the promise of the first; hell I'll even concede that a certain entity is badly designed, but it does have something new to offer the formula, it's also well performed by the cast, that itself is a rarity. It hasn't resonated with all, but it was a monster hit at the box office, making nearly $85 million in profit. The market for a good haunted house spooker is always open, so Insidious, in spite of its second half irks, sits in the top draw with the best of them. 8/10

It's not wholly original, but it works because the people involved **make** it work, first and foremost, James Wan.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

A fascinating watch - totally worth the 209 minute run time.
There's so much to like about 'The Irishman'. From the top class performances, the ace cinematography, the excellent music and, most importantly, the captivating plot. I enjoyed this more than (the great) 'Goodfellas', which is my only previous experience of a Martin Scorsese film.
Robert De Niro is always a fantastic watch and here he is no different, I absolutely loved every scene of him as Frank. Al Pacino (Jimmy) and Joe Pesci (Russell) are also superb, Pacino particularly. Away from those three, you also have Ray Romano, Bobby Cannavale, Stephen Graham and Harvey Keitel involved. Awesome cast.
No idea how true to life it is, all I care is if it delivers a fantastic film - and it undoubtedly does. I felt entertained for every second. The de-aging effects are cool to see, also. I understand why some may fault this. Me? Loved it!