Wanted to love this but there were moments where I sort of lost interest. And while I don't at all mind lengthy movies (Godfather Part II and Apocalypse Now are two of my favorite movies), this one was probably a good 20-minutes too long IMO. That said, nice to see De Niro at least trying to act rather than sleepwalk through a role and seeing Joe Pesci was great. Pacino however I never 100% bought into playing Hoffa. Guess it's worth checking out but doesn't hold a candle to other Scorsese's films. **3.5/5**

It might not be Martin Scorsese’s best film yet, but it’s one more proof that he’s one of the most talented filmmakers ever. With Robert De Niro delivering his best performance of the decade, Al Pacino going crazy and Joe Pesci brilliantly coming out of retirement, The Irishman is a wonderfully-written, (very) long story about friendship and life. The best editing (Thelma Schoonmaker) of the year makes the runtime smoother, but it still drags on for too long. I also feel that Anna Paquin’s character should have had more impact. The de-aging VFX is mind-blowing, even if it takes a few minutes to get used to it.
Rating: A-

This being nominated for SAG's "Best Acting Ensemble" is basically like when _Bohemian Rhapsody_ won "Best Editing" at the Oscars.
This uh... This movie's better though.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

**_Far too long, but arguably Scorsese's most thematically complex_**
>_Don't let any man into your cab, your home, or your heart, unless he's a friend of labour._
- Jimmy Hoffa
>_When Jimmy saw that the house was empty, that nobody came out of any of the rooms to greet him, he knew right away what it was. If Jimmy had taken his piece with him he would have gone for it. Jimmy was a fighter. He turned fast, still thinking we were together on the thing, that I was his backup. Jimmy bumped into me hard. If he saw the piece in my hand he had to think I had it out to protect him. He took a_ _quick step to go around me and get to the door. He reached for the knob and Jimmy Hoffa got shot twice at a decent range – not too close or the paint splatters back at you – in the back of the head behind his right ear. My friend didn't suffer._
- Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran, with Charles Brandt; _"I Heard You Paint Houses": Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran and the Inside Story of the Mafia, the Teamsters, and the Last Ride of Jimmy Hoffa_ (2004)
>_In 2004, a small publishing house in Hanover, New Hampshire, unleashed a shocker titled I Heard You Paint Houses. It was written by Charles Brandt, a medical malpractice lawyer who had helped Sheeran win early parole from prison, due to poor health, at age 71. Starting not long after that, Brandt wrote, Sheeran, nearing the end of his life, began confessing incredible secrets he had kept for decades, revealing that – far from being a bit player – he was actually the unseen figure behind some of the biggest mafia murders of all time._
>_Frank Sheeran said he killed Jimmy Hoffa._
>_He said he killed Joey Gallo, too._
>_And he said he did some other really bad things nearly as incredible._
>_Most amazingly, Sheeran did all that without ever being arrested, charged, or even suspected of those crimes by any law enforcement agency, even though officials were presumably watching him for most of his adult life. To call him the Forrest Gump of organised crime scarcely does him justice. In all the history of the mafia in America or anywhere else, really, nobody even comes close._
- Bill Tonelli; "The Lies of the Irishman"; _Slate_ (August 7, 2019)
>_I'm telling you, he's full of shit! Frank Sheeran never killed a fly. The only things he ever killed were countless jugs of red wine._
- John Carlyle Berkery; Quoted in "The Lies of the Irishman"
>_I haven't read the script of The Irishman, but the book on which it is based is the most fabricated mafia tale since the fake autobiography of Lucky Luciano 40 years ago._
- Nicholas Gage; Quoted in "The Lies of the Irishman"
_The Irishman_ is 209 minutes long and spans 60 years (1944 to 2004), taking in such events as the end of World War II in 1945; the 1957-1964 feud between Senator (later Attorney General) Robert F. Kennedy and Jimmy Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the election of John F. Kennedy as President in 1960; the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961; the assassination of JFK in 1963; the election of Richard Nixon as President in 1968; the Watergate scandal from 1972 to 1974; and Nixon's resignation in 1974. All of this historical context, however, is mere window dressing, and at no time is it where the film's focus lies. Instead, _The Irishman_ is about aging, loss, taking stock, regret. To a certain extent, it is to the gangster genre what John Ford's _The Searchers_ (1956) was to the classic western.
Based on the 2004 book by Charles Brandt, _"I Heard You Paint Houses": Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran and the Inside Story of the Mafia, the Teamsters, and the Last Ride of Jimmy Hoffa_, _The Irishman_ was written for the screen by Steven Zaillian (_Schindler's List_; _A Civil Action_; _American Gangster_) and directed by Martin Scorsese (_Taxi Driver_; _The Last Temptation of Christ_; _The Aviator_), whose _GoodFellas_ (1990) and _Casino_ (1995) are two of the most celebrated gangster movies ever made (although, I think I'm the only person on the planet who dislikes _GoodFellas_; I love _Casino_ though). An old-school auteur in the mould of filmmakers such as Francis Ford Coppola, Brian De Palma, Michael Mann, Terrence Malick, and Oliver Stone, Scorsese, Malick, and Mann are three of the very few such filmmakers who remain as relevant today as they were when they first broke into the business. I personally haven't really liked much of what he's done in the last couple of decades, but there's no denying Scorsese is a filmmaker who still seems to have a lot to say.
_The Irishman_ has received a rapturous reception, with critics and audiences proclaiming it as one of Scorsese's best movies. And although I certainly don't disagree that it has (many) masterful elements, but it's just too blooming long, taking far too much time to get to the last act (which is superb). Shorten it by 20 minutes in the mid-section, and you have a masterpiece. Now, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with long films – Coppola's _The Godfather Part II_ (202 minutes) is one of the finest films ever made; three of my all-time favourite movies are the Director's Cuts of Sergio Leone's _Once Upon a Time in America_ (250), Kevin Costner's _Dances with Wolves_ (236), and Malick's _The Tree of Life_ (190); I adore Kenneth Branagh's _Hamlet_ (242), and I'm a big fan of films such as Jerzy Hoffman's _Potop_ (315), Bernardo Bertolucci's _1900_ (317) and Béla Tarr's _Sátántangó_ (442...yep, 442). However, such length has to be narratively justified, and I just felt that in _The Irishman_, it wasn't. A runtime of around 170-180 minutes would have been perfect, but as it stands, the film's 206 minutes occasionally feel padded and (dare I say it) self-indulgent. Nevertheless, the acting is universally superb, the directing is more contemplative than we've seen from Scorsese in a while, Thelma Schoonmaker's editing is predictably awesome, and Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography is flawless. If only it was 20 minutes shorter.
The film opens in 2003 as we meet an elderly Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro). A World War II veteran who was stationed in Italy, Sheeran now lives in a nursing home and is close to death. Wanting to die with something of a clear conscience, he decides to speak about his time as the go-to hitman for the Northeastern Pennsylvania-based Bufalino crime family. We then cut to 1975 as Sheeran, family patriarch Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci), and their wives are embarking on a three-day drive to attend a wedding. As they pass by the spot where Sheeran and Bufalino first met, we cut to 1954, with Sheeran working as a truck driver for a slaughterhouse. Although, he has a reputation for reliability, on the side, he's selling more than a little of the meat to Felix "Skinny Razor" DiTullio (Bobby Cannavale), a wiseguy working for the Philadelphia and New Jersey-based Bruno crime family led by Angelo Bruno (Harvey Keitel), an ally and friend of Russell. When Sheeran sells the entire contents of his truck, however, turning up at the delivery location with an empty storage, the company charge him with theft, but he's successfully represented by Bill Bufalino (Ray Romano), Russell's cousin. Sheeran and Russell become good friends, and soon, Russell has Sheeran carrying out various hits. Loyal to the Bruno and Bufalino families, and adept at his job, Sheeran quickly moves up the underworld ladder, and Bufalino introduces him to Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). The president of the Mob-funded Teamsters union, Hoffa is facing investigation by the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management and is struggling to deal with rising teamster Anthony "Pro" Provenzano (Stephen Graham). Hoffa is volatile, unpredictable, confrontational, and believes himself untouchable, so Bufalino wants Sheeran to babysit him and try to keep him out of trouble. Hoffa and Sheeran hit it off, and soon Sheeran is Hoffa's unofficial bodyguard. However, despite Sheeran's best efforts, as the years go by, Hoffa continues to antagonise his Mob backers, and some of them soon come to see him as more of a liability than an asset.
Originally set at Paramount, when _The Irishman_'s budget started pushing $150m before shooting had even begun, the studio deemed the project too expensive and dropped it. Then came Netflix, who not only put up the money, but they also offered Scorsese a near unheard-of degree of creative control – the kind of control that almost no one person has been given over a project this big since Michael Cimino pissed away $44m ($115m in today's money) of United Artists' money on Heaven's Gate (1980), a film originally budgeted at $11.6m, and which earned back only $3m at the box office, ending the _auteur_-driven New Hollywood era, nearly bankrupting UA, and fundamentally altering the way movie studios did business. Netflix's involvement with _The Irishman_ is an interesting situation because here you have a film that simply could not have been made through the modern studio system (at least not in its current form). Netflix is usually derided for their purchase of movies originally intended for theatrical release, which are then packaged as "Netflix Originals", with many predicting that streaming services will ultimately destroy the cinema industry entirely. As with many such films, _The Irishman_ was given a limited theatrical release to ensure it qualified for Oscar consideration (Netflix _really_ to have a Best Picture winner in their catalogue). However, disgruntled about there being only a three week gap between theatrical release and streaming debut, major cinema chains such as AMC, Cinemark, Regal, and Cineplex all refused to carry it, with AMC's Adam Aron stating they would only be open to showing the film if Netflix "_respects the decades-old theatrical window, that suggests that movies come to theatres first for a couple of months, and then go to the home._" For all that, however, it's hard for a lover of cinema not to celebrate Netflix stepping in to save such an ambitious and artistic film, to say nothing of the unprecedented control they gave Scorsese. It was a great PR move, sure, but it was also a massive financial risk, so you really can't condemn their involvement.
Looking very briefly at the real-life background of the film's narrative, most historians today dismiss Sheeran's account of how important he was to the Bufalino family, and several of his claims have been proven as fabrications (for more information on this, see Bill Tonelli's August 2019 article "The Lies of the Irishman" for _Slate_ and Jack Goldsmith's September 2019 article "Jimmy Hoffa and The Irishman: A True Crime Story?" for _The New York Review_). Nevertheless, the film uses Sheeran's book as the main source for the story, so it's best just to put the many historical embellishments to the back of your mind. Aside from killing Hoffa, some of Sheeran's most flamboyant claims include killing Joe Gallo, delivering a truckload of weaponry to soldiers preparing for the Bay of Pigs Invasion (handing the truck over to E. Howard Hunt, no less), giving a bag containing three rifles to a pilot days before Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and delivering a suitcase containing a $500,000 bribe to Attorney General John N. Mitchell to pass on to Nixon. Historians, however, tell us he did none of these things, maintaining that he was a low-level goon with a drinking problem who was never assigned to any important task. This has been corroborated by several former Mob bosses who knew Sheeran. According to Tonelli,
>_not a single person I spoke with who knew Sheeran from Philly – and I interviewed cops and criminals and prosecutors and reporters – could remember even a suspicion that he had ever killed anyone._
So, either he was the greatest and most clandestine Mob hitman of all time, or he was full of shit.
Irrespective of this, however, _The Irishman_ is a film written in regret. Scorsese has often been accused of making Mob recruitment films, and it's well-known that real-life gangsters love _GoodFellas_ and _Casino_. In _The Irishman_, however, there's a thematic maturity not present in those films – the violence is presented with a degree more solemnity, the emotional fallout of such a life with a degree more finality. Much of this is tied up in Sheeran's daughter Peggy (played by Lucy Gallina as a child and Anna Paquin as an adult). An almost completely wordless role, Peggy is introduced in a scene in which she watches her father viciously beat the grocer for whom she works because he pushed her. The impression of him which this gives her is something Sheeran spends much of the rest of the film trying to ameliorate.
Another important element in the film's thematic complexity, particularly the theme of death, is that as each gangster appears for the first time, a subtitle tells us who they are, but also lists the date of their deaths and how they were murdered (which almost all were). There's no better illustration of just how concerned the film is with the nature of transience – every single one of these guys is a colossus in their own mind, and each deems themselves invincible (as do we all when young). Yet none of them make it out of life alive. In the film's last act, this theme is distilled down to its very essence, essentially positing that the only important thing you leave behind is your relationships with other people, and Sheeran has badly mismanaged his, resulting in him sitting alone in a nursing home at Christmas, waiting to die. In _GoodFellas_ and _Casino_, the protagonists lose their wealth, possessions, status, and so on, but in _The Irishman_, the loss is more existential – Sheeran loses his soul. Telling himself for much of the film that he's an inherently decent person insofar as he loves his family and is loyal to his friends, it's only at the very end that he comes to realise he was a monster. Scorsese is here showing us that men like Sheeran and Bufalino must erase their humanity to function effectively in this world (or conversely, that they can function effectively because they have no humanity to begin with), suggesting that men with no conscience are not only not men, they're not even alive.
This issue comes to a head in a remarkably well-acted scene towards the end of the film in which Sheeran calls the widow of a man he has recently murdered (all the man's wife knows at the time of the call is that her husband is missing). Assuring her that he's there for her should she need anything, Sheeran urges her to try to think positive, explaining that he believes the man will turn up eventually. It clearly causes him a degree of pain, but the fact that he can do it at all speaks to his sociopathy if not necessarily his psychopathology. The last act, as the violence settles and the zingers and insults dry up, is remarkably bleak in a way that the last acts of _GoodFellas_ and _Casino_ aren't, and as we watch Sheeran sitting in that nursing home, taking stock, spelling out his regrets, reminiscing about his actions as a young man, it's impossible not to see the meta dimension – Scorsese himself looking back on his career, remembering the classics of yesteryear, keenly aware that old-age is beginning to creep up on him.
In terms of the acting, the closest we get to a poor performance is Pacino, who portrays Hoffa as if he was playing, well, Al Pacino. This is arguably the biggest he's gone since Taylor Hackford's _Devil's Advocate_ (1997), a film in which he quite literally played Satan. But in terms of portraying Hoffa, look at footage of the real Hoffa, then watch both The Irishman and Danny DeVito's _Hoffa_ (1992) in which Jack Nicholson plays the character, and tell me who gives the more authentic performance. Don't get me wrong, Pacino is fun to watch (I would gladly see an entire film composed of nothing but him and Stephen Graham insulting one another), and most of the laughs come from his over-the-top antics, but it's not an especially accurate depiction of the real man. As for De Niro, this is his first not-phoned-in performance in decades, possibly since _Casino_ and Mann's _Heat_ (1995), and he imbues the character with real interiority and complex psychology, without diluting Sheeran's inherent inhumanity. However, the real standout performance is Pesci. Nine years since his last live-action film, Pesci falls back into the groove without missing a beat. However, those looking for the fireworks of Tommy DeVito or Nicky Santoro will be disappointed – this is literally the inverse of such performances. Pesci's Bufalino is quiet, calm, considered, highly intelligent, but cold and sociopathic, the kind of man who wouldn't so much beat your head in, but would order someone else to do so without giving it a second thought.
If the film has a single problem, it's the runtime. Depending on your perspective, 206 minutes is either too long or, ironically, not long enough. I could certainly see this story working well as a six-hour miniseries, but as a film, it needs trimming. As mentioned above, the last act is devastating; there's little tension as such, but there sure is pathos. However, by the time we got to this point, I was starting to feel the film had outstayed its welcome, when I should have been the most heavily invested in the story. This has been a recurrent problem in recent Scorsese films, most notably _The Aviator_ (2004), _The Wolf of Wallstreet_ (2013), and the horrendous _Silence_ (2016), but this is the first time he's strayed from over-long into self-indulgence. The film simply doesn't warrant this length; whole scenes could easily be removed without compromising the story, the character beats, or the emotion. This is mostly felt in the long middle section in which Scorsese broadens the story to take in the Kennedy and Nixon presidencies, without ever really tying the historical material to Sheeran's narration. Presumably, he's trying to show the interconnectedness between the underworld and politics, but given the time he spends on it, that isn't especially clear.
Another problem, albeit a smaller one, is the digital de-aging. Apart from a scene showing a 20-something Sheeran, in which De Niro looks like he's made of (cheap) wax, I thought the technology was deployed pretty successfully; it's a little jolting at first, but easy to get used to. What stood out, however, was the tired bodies beneath those de-aged faces. This is most notable in the scene where Sheeran beats up Peggy's boss – a pivotal moment that drives a permanent wedge between the two as she witnesses for the first time his savagery. Except the beating is pathetic – the kicks are about five miles away from the man's face and De Niro's exhausted stomps wouldn't flatten a wet cardboard box. It's a shame as, it's a good scene, but the lack of correlation between face and body is undeniably jarring. Another issue is one that has cropped up in all of Scorsese's Mob films – glorification. Obviously, _The Irishman_ is about the toxic masculinity of this world and the lonely endgame (if one even gets to the endgame), but much as was the case with his (frankly stomach-churning) softening of Jordan Belfort in _Wolf of Wall Street_, Scorsese runs a very real risk of glamorising what he claims to be condemning.
With 20 minutes shaved off, this could have been one of the best films of the century thus far. For me, _The Irishman_ was a very good movie, but certainly not the masterpiece many others have felt it to be. But that's just me, and I can certainly recognise and celebrate such ambitious and _auteur_-driven filmmaking, especially coming, as it does, at a time when more and more it feels like films are being made by committees rather than by artists. Arguably Scorsese's most eschatological film, certainly since _Kundun_ (1997), _The Irishman_ is essentially a story of how one man lost his soul, and, by extension how the world for which he lost it dehumanises and degrades those who participate in its rites. Although brought down by old-age, abandonment, and the merciless nature of human existence, Scorsese refuses to afford these men an easy out – they made their choices, and they must now live, and die, with the consequences.

It would almost be wrong to call ‘The Irishman’ a film; rather, it acts more like a tapestry. This isn’t telling one story, but a number of stories spanning decades that just so happen to involve the same group of dangerous gangsters, sharing the same threads of beautiful cinematography, great visual effects and patient editing. With his increasingly lengthy run times, Scorsese seems to be realising that a life cannot be condensed down into a clean 100-minute arc, and audiences should get excited by the opportunity to experience the art of film in this way. It’s a sight to behold.
- Ashley Teresa
Read Ashley's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-irishman-kissing-scorseses-ring-again

Recently, I decided to watch the movie Warcraft on Netflix, as it was trending in the top 10 for the week. I thought I'd give it a chance, even though it was a film I never had any desire to see in theaters.
To my disappointment, Warcraft turned out to be a jumbled mess. The storyline was all over the place, lacking any substance to keep me invested. It felt more like a movie made for a streaming service rather than a theatrical release.
The characters were either unbelievable or poorly done with excessive CGI and sloppy editing. They looked so artificial that it was hard to connect with them, almost like watching a low-budget video game adaptation rather than a true movie based on a game.
One major distraction was the inconsistent portrayal of the creatures and characters. While the men were depicted as giants, the women appeared as regular humans or even dwarfs. The plot involving a Lady turning traitor on both sides only added to the confusion, making the already lengthy film feel like it dragged on unnecessarily.
Overall, Warcraft was a disappointing experience that I wished I had never subjected myself to. It was a chaotic and unenjoyable movie that I couldn't wait to escape from.

I had fairly low expectations for this, and I wasn't really disappointed. Based on a highly complex game structure, the characterisations seem to be drawn from a Tolkien meets Arthurian world in which magicians, guardians, orcs, humans and Glenn Close are all vying for power. What ensues now is a pretty straightforward tale of betrayal and manipulation with a bit of romance and plenty of visual effects that must have caused no end of boredom for an almost comedic Travis Fimmel, Ben Foster, Dominic Cooper and many others who must have been dangled, stood, sat or made to pretend-fight in front of a green screen for most of the production process. The fight scenes are relentless, colourful and creative, but they all go on for far too long with each ugly great beastie trying to wrestle another to the ground in the face of some terrible green glowing eyes that are trying to impose the "fel" magic on the kingdom. It is not a terrible film, though it is too long, it's just all about the technology and very little about a coherent piece of entertaining cinema that could have delivered much more had the screenplay worked harder with the undoubtedly promising opportunity for fantasy storytelling.

A good fantasy movie, a bad video game movie (27 February 2017)
The day it premiered, me not being a wow fan or anything, i went and watched it, a mere fantasy lover who just couldn't resist not coming in contact with something new and promising. Hands down, even if i didn't know anything from this lore, through the movie i couldn't hold a grin all over my face. I don't know why maybe cause i was seeing before me a fantasy world well established. A world that probably deserved it. I left the cinema over-excited. I started playing the game, and more importantly i started reading the novels.
First come the Rise of the Horde(RoH), describing the durotan's life, gul'dan's rise to power, the fall of draenor etc. Second would be the Last Guardian(TLG) establishing Kadhagar, Garona, Medivh and Lothar. The third one, Tides of Darkness takes place after the death of Llane and the fall of Storwind, so the movie should sit between novels 2 and 3. And it is between those that i decided to rewatch the movie, now more experienced in the World of Warcraft.
To my sadness, i was disappointed. My once 8.5/10 rating fell to 5.5. Althouth the CGI was again THRILLING, the story was honestly RAPED. Reading TLG i noticed that the movie i had watched months ago, had changed some, but damn after rewatching it, i just couldn't stand it. There were some huge changes that honestly served no reason! For example why on earth Stormwind didn't fall? or why did the alliance exist already when it should not? why Orgrim was a Frostwolf? why Lothar's character was so damn wrong?? I hated movie-Lothar! I understand that the movie being made for non wow fans too, should be changed a bit, but come on... Video game movies should be more close to the lore! Even more than book-only fandoms! And me saying that, i am twice a reader than a gamer! For one, if they couldn't make a proper movie of the coming of the horde to azeroth then they could very well start from RoH story. It has the content to support a great fantasy movie. Works that end up lesser than they should, are disappointing.

The beginning is confusing and poorly acted, but it gets better as it goes. The CGI looks seamless with the live-action.

**One fights for their new home and the others to defend theirs.**
I never played Warcraft game in my life, nor read comic book, but I enjoyed this new fantasy universe. Azeroth is the world where this story takes place. When the Orcs planet was destroyed, they use a magic portal to get to Azeroth and make a safe home. But that is where humans and other intelligent species live peacefully. A new race means a new conflict to solve the differences. So the battle commences at no time to gain the power to rule the land. Between the two great powers, who wins is the film to tell us in the rest of the parts.
It was something like 'Avatar' and 'The Lost of the Rings' coming together. Despite having alien race, it is very much an action- fantasy film, not a sci-fi. From the games to film, it was awesomely made which is obviously a latest trend in the filmmaking. The graphics were good, but not perfect, and that's fine, because it succeeds to give the game look than the realistic one. I think that's the point, otherwise no disgrace to call it was inspired by the games or comic book.
I know it is not a masterpiece like 'The Lord of the Rings', but there's a promise like the quality and story and its characters. There's no big names, but these actors who are known mostly for their supporting roles has given their best. Like I said I'm new to this Warcraft universe, so I don't know anything outside this film, but I'm kind of neutral on the war between the humans and orcs. Because one's world was destroyed and they're seeking a new home and the other ones are defending theirs. So everything makes sense from both the perspectives for their actions.
This is just a beginning, there's lot more sequels to come. Though, it's a pity that it failed in America, the native product, but internationally proved it is one of best of its kind, I mean games to screen adaptation. The director of 'Source Code' did a great job and all the actors, including those motion-capture artists. I missed Zoe Saldana in this, to be as another blue or green skinned alien specie, instead Paula Patton did well in a similar role. The character name also very similar to the one from 'Guardian of the Galaxy'. I know it's going to get even bigger in the follow-up, so I can't wait for it. Hope it will release in less than couple of years.
_8/10_

Even if you have never played "Warcraft" or "World of Warcraft" before,
I think you will like this movie. It has a great story, good acting &
is visually stunning. The special effects are not over the top, but are
very good & believable. Do yourself a favor & don't think of this a
another "video game movie", see it & you will love it & want another to
be made. I hope this turns this into a great franchise, there are too
many good stories in the "Warcraft" universe waiting to be told on the
big screen. Some non WoW fans might have a hard time following the fast paced story, but watch it again if you missed it & you will understand it more. I think there could have been a bit more character development & the addition of a narration track might help non Warcraft fans understand a little better, I hope they will do a little better on the sequel.

I really was expecting very little from this movie, but I was surprised. Good action and quite a decent story. Not all fresh, but well put together.
I think the biggest pity is the lack of talent of Fimmel. He learnt how to perform for Vikings and he lays another flat copy of the same character.
Positive points to the very good OST by Djawadi.

Faith is a gift I have yet to receive.
Angels and Demons is directed by Ron Howard and adapted to screenplay by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman from the Dan Brown novel of the same name. It stars Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgard, Pierfrancesco Favino, Nikolaj Lie Kaas and Armin Mueller- Stahl. Music is scored by Hans Zimmer and cinematography by Salvatore Totino.
Symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) is summoned to Rome and asked by the Vatican to help when four cardinals are kidnapped. Upon examining a tape recording that announces that the cardinals will be killed one at a time hourly, Langdon places the crime at the door of the ancient Illuminati. It's a race against time to not only try and save the lives of the cardinals, but also to avert the detonation of an anti-matter bomb which will destroy Vatican City.
In spite of The Da Vinci Code making gargantuan amounts of cash, there were many who actively hated the movie. Yet this follow up from Howard and his makers still enticed just under $500 million's worth of worldwide paying punters into see it. Ultimately it's a very different movie to Da Vinci, where that film was sombre and talky, and had a great religious hook that caused tremors in Christianity, Angels and Demons is a pacey race against time serial killer thriller. Albeit one that is still religion based and additionally topped up with some sci-fi gubbins.
The ticking time bomb format works well as a cliff hanger and the narrative allows Langdon and his latest lady investigator, CERN scientist Vittoria Vettra (Zurer), scope for no-nonsense detective work. There's a good solid mystery story at the heart, one which doesn't veer to being over complicated, and the production value is of a very high standard. Casting is first class, with McGregor and Skarsgard complimenting the reliable, and thankfully new haircut sporting, Hanks. It's a little draggy in the mid-section, as history comes crashing into the mix and the makers feel the need to be cerebral, and the finale is bizarre if wholly appropriate, but herein lies the problem
If you can judge it on its own terms, not as a Dan Brown novel recreation and a link to bad memories of Da Vinci Code (not me, I liked it well enough actually)? Then it's a film of simple pleasures. If not then it kind of goes without saying that you probably already dislike the movie! 7.5/10

Oh come on, it's not actually that bad! I mean, if we accept from the outset that there's nothing at all original about this apocalyptic "Batman"-style thriller, then we can just get behind our heroes in an half shell and enjoy the ride. Bumpy? Well yes it is. You see, "Shredder" (Tohoru Masamune) and his dastardly "Foot Clan" have taken control of New York City. To make matters worse, "Splinter" has been attacked and he and all but "Raphael" turtle-napped. Now the game is afoot. Rescue them all then with the help of feisty reporter "April" (Megan Fox) and her savvy cameraman "Vern" (Will Arnett) apply their ninja skills and get to grips with the evil that now governs their city. Nothing at all original, no, but there's plenty of action and the odd bit of witty dialogue - usually from "Michaelangelo" - is included as leader "Leo" and the sharpest of the bunch - "Donatello" - have to come up with and execute a cunning plan in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Of course there's a message for us too. Some gently moralising stuff about inter-reliance, team building, loyalty - and, of course, there are plenty of sagely interventions from their rattish guru. It was entirely logical for Hollywood to capitalise on these global phenomena and to be fair, though it's pretty poor, it's no worse than a great many derivative efforts that the 2010s CGI factories churned out to keep the production lines in full flow. True fans may get something more from this, but for the rest of us - well it's not really up to much at all.

Flat, generic, CGI-filled. 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' bored me, unfortunately.
I have a slight memory of seeing bits of TMNT when I was younger but never intentionally watched it, though have always been interested in viewing a film with them in. So in that sense, this disappointed. It just has nothing about it, no character or charm whatsoever. No reason to care for any of the onscreen bunch. Very plain.
None of the cast stick out, particularly the voices. Megan Fox is probably the best this has to offer, though I didn't mind William Fichtner either... Whoopi Goldberg shows up in an alright minor role too, I guess?
I found little to zero of the action scenes entertaining, not helped by some questionable editing and music. Another issue I did also notice is the humour, which falls flat at almost every opportunity - especially with the grating Michelangelo (Noel Fisher).
I'll check out the sequel, because I always going to, but I ain't expecting much! This 2014 film isn't worth seeing.

I have to say that this was a rather “meh” experience. It certainly was not an improvement over the original. Why try to rewrite a story that was actually not bad when you cannot be bothered to spend some effort on it? The new story is sloppy and it is rather clear that whoever wrote it got only two directives: Make sure that Megan Fox gets a lot of focus and if you do not know what to write then cram in some special effects. There are a lot of special effects in this movie!
It is obvious that Megan Fox’s ego have had a lot of influence on the movie. To the extent that you might wonder if this movie is about the turtles or about Megan Fox. She might be the wet dream of some less discerning teenagers but her acting skills leaves somewhat to be desired. Okay, okay she was actually not too bad in this movie but then it was not to difficult to shine in this movie either.
There are a few moments when it looks like it is going to turn interesting. For instance when the shredder is first introduced and punishes some of his underlings but rather quickly he is reduced to just another “special effect” when they slap this robotic shredder suit onto him. Come on, he is supposed to be a skilled martial arts combatant, not some freak in a robotic suit.
Splinter was just sad. Some lab rat that picked up martial arts from a book he found in the sewers! What the f…? That ruined a lot of the movie.
The turtles themselves, being already pushed back somewhat into the background by Megan Fox desire to be in front of the cameras most of the time, are bland to say the least. They are immature, even for a movie like this, and the jokes are simply unintelligent and mostly not very funny.
I was about to write that, if you like special effects and do not care for much of the rest, then you will probably like this movie but when I think back even the special effects where often only mildly interesting. They were perhaps not really bad but not very impressive either. The truck ride down a snowy slope was just silly and some of the scenes where actually rather underwhelming for instance.
On the whole, to me, this was a mildly entertaining movie that could have been much better if someone with basic intelligence had been asked to write the script in the first place. There are actually five (!) people credited with writing this movie and maybe that is the problem. Too many cooks!

You can see what's coming from a mile off. Still good though.
I'm pretty sure I've watched 'The Proposal' before many, many years ago as I semi recognised a couple of scenes and knew where the story was going from basically pressing play, though the second half of the film didn't feel like something I had previously seen... so who knows! Either way, that didn't affect my enjoyment at all.
Having only seen Ryan Reynolds in his present day comedy machine it is so odd seeing him act less jokey and more serious, even if you can still spot the quintessential Reynolds comedic delivery in there every now and then. It takes a little bit to get over that but eventually a strong performance is clearly visible. Sandra Bullock fits this realm comfortably and is also very good throughout.
The film does a neat job at making it all believable, the journey from where the two characters begin to where they finish is one that somehow feels natural. It never feels disjointed, which is actually impressive given the plot. Reynolds and Bullock, who share sizeable chemistry, are a large reason for that, of course.

**Had to see it a second time to be convinced, but The Proposal is a top-shelf rom-com!**
When I first saw this movie in theaters back when it came out, I was not impressed. But after rewatching it, I'm still trying to remember what I didn't like! I was laughing out loud and feeling my heartstrings pulled the entire time. The dog and eagle scene had me rolling! Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds are both romantic comedy veterans that prove their skills with the genre in this film. Reynold's quick wit and Bullock's physical comedy perfectly complement each other. The supporting cast and unique twist on the awkwardly forced marriage concept elevate this movie a little further, making The Proposal one of the best of its genre.

**Introduction by SpotaMovie.com**
Disney delivers another movie f**ull of adventure, colours and essential messages. Raya and the last Dragon, released in 2021 and produced by Disney, is entertaining, powerful but not excellent.** The film received a Nominee at the “Hollywood Critics Association” in 2021 for the Best Picture. **It’s a must-watch for all generations, and let us explain to you why in our movie analysis at SpotaMovie.com**
**Raya and the Last Dragon – The Story**
Five hundred years ago, there was a happy place where everyone was living harmoniously and united. **Its name was Kumandra, protected by Dragons, and was an inspiring world for future generations.** However, the Druun, diabolic creatures that turn people into stone, attacked Kumandra.
So the Dragons put their powers together, risking their lives to defeat the Druun. Therefore, something magical will happen but not easily understandable for humans.
However, **the world without Dragons is not the same. The people of Kumandra created five different lands, constantly fighting each other to protect or to steal the “sacred” gem.**
Therefore, after five hundred years, **Raya and her father, Chief Benja, dream of recreating Kumandra. **An impossible mission that will bring us adventures, actions and inspiring moments to enjoy.
1. - Will Raya achieve her goal?
2. - What will she learn?
3. - And what will she teach us?

Me and the kids watched this movie, one of the latest works of Disney, the other evening. I am pleased to be able to write that we found it quite good actually.
It is always with some worry that I approach anything that comes from Disney these days given how their woke brigade have screwed things over lately. This movie however, seems to be more or less back to old and working recipes and free from (too much) woke nonsense. Maybe Disney execs have finally realized that letting the woke brigade, SJW’s and cancel culture have any say whatsoever in the creative processes hurts the bottom line.
It is a good adventure story surrounded by lots of colorful characters, great scenery and lovely animated creatures. Just how a animated Disney movie should be. Some, probably self proclaimed, culture elite called it a “mediocre and repetitive story”. That is just such a load of bullshit but unfortunately the stupid algorithms on IMDb’s website calls it a “top review” and puts it on the front page of the movie (which is why I noticed it). Given that the movie currently hold a 7.4 rating on IMDb, 81% on TMDb and even the usually useless Rotten Tomatoes gave it a rating well above 90% I’d say this bloke is a minority.
Raya herself was quite likable but her main adversary was rather bland in my opinion. However, the characters surrounding Raya was making up for this. I quite liked Boun, I definitely liked Tong and I just loved the baby and the three small rascals causing mischief everywhere they went.
The dragons where okay, Sisu was rather fun but they were all more like cuddly pets than real dragons with any real powers except for some parlor tricks. I did like the ending with all the Dragons being back though.
In good Disney tradition there were plenty of side characters and environmental gadgets etc… that threw in some additional laughs here and there.
As I wrote above, this was pretty much what would expect from Disney, the good Disney that we used to know that made fun movies for all ages.

Great watch, would watch again, and do recommend.
I heard a lot of noise about it being a rip off of this, or a rip off of that, long short that it was a non-original cash-grab.
I honestly don't see what people were talking about, other than it was an Asian-ish themed animation, and those people are just unfamiliar with Eastern anime, poor things.
This feels like an untold, if not unique, world, mythology, and great characters.
My big problem with this movie is that it is fueled by stupid. I honestly expected them to fight over the magic thing, but the incompetence of stealing a thing that keeps the world from ending, let alone breaking it into pieces is a bit much. It actually pushes it over into a horror movie territory, and it shows at one point.
There was also the bit where they show us a movie they skipped before this one, but it may not have been the best to start a franchise.
This movie feels like an old timey fable, it gets dark, and there is a lesson to be learned.
I found it full of fun, adventure and action, not to mention top quality animation. It is well worth the watch.

Disney, like many studios, have been under a lot of pressure to produce not only a large quantity of content but it also needs a higher level of quality. There was a clear need for something new under the Disney brand that wasn’t just a remake from something in the 90s and I believe Raya was a ray of sunshine to the studio. The ability to maintain the same family friendly message while still allowing animation to touch the hearts of any viewer was such an amazing feat. In order to avoid any spoilers I’ll just say the journey of Raya is not only inspirational but empowering. This is certainly a win for the studio and for any viewer that gives it a chance.

It’s terrific to see the animated movies continuing to evolve, and “Raya and the Last Dragon” is the latest film that takes the traditional idea of a Disney heroine and makes a huge leap into a welcome new direction. This magical fantasy / adventure tale features inspired characters, beautiful animation, and a culturally accurate representation of Asian mythology. It’s a terrific movie on all levels.
Long ago in the make-believe world of Kumandra, humans and dragons lived together in harmony. There was a complete balance to the world until an evil force known as the Druun began to threaten the land. This sinister tribe of shadow monsters rose to power by feeding off the discord of humans, and the dragons decided to sacrifice themselves to save all of humanity. New unrest nearly 500 years later has resulted in the five divided lands of the kingdom refusing to co-exist in peace, giving rise to the Druun once again. Determined to preserve the world she loves, lone warrior Raya (voiced by Kelly Marie Tran) decides to track down the last living dragon and use its magic to save Kumandra.
Raya is a trailblazing heroine, and she’s one that’s easy to admire and love. Her determination never falters as she learns the value of teamwork and trust along her journey. The film’s main characters are all female, from the last dragon Sisu (voiced by Awkwafina) to Raya’s adversary Namaari (voiced by Gemma Chan). There’s a magical relationship between Sisu and Raya, two unlikely friends that discover in each other that exactly little spark that each of their lives were missing. Even better, Raya collects a group of misfits along her journey, reinforcing the idea that heroes can come from the most unlikely places.
The film’s group of directors (Don Hall, Carlos López Estrada, Paul Briggs, and John Ripa) has created original characters that are unlike others you’ve seen before, and the beautiful animation brings them to life. Sisu is a gorgeous pastel-hued dragon with a personality to match (Awkwafina is the MVP in the cast). Raya is a new kind of Disney “princess,” one who knows how to take charge and can kick butt. There’s so much for everyone to love here, even if some of the goofier gags (like a thieving baby who is far more irritating than cute) may take viewers out of the overall experience.
The story is exciting and the elements of mythical adventure are spirited, making “Raya and the Last Dragon” one of the more interesting films to come out of Disney in a while. It’s an animated feature with a positive, sincere message, lively action scenes, and a sweet tale of friendship that can be enjoyed by the entire family.

'Raya and the Last Dragon' is a solid step back in the right direction for Walt Disney Animation Studios. Over the past 20 years, they've struggled to find their confidence and voice as a studio, certainly due to complicated changes of leadership and the rise of genuine artistic and financial competitors, but 'Raya' is the kind of film in which they do their best work - an entertaining and exciting experience built on a strong protagonist with a clear motivation and a powerful internal conflict. The legacy of Disney animation has been to speak to the deep emotional truths of the human experience in a way that is accessible to anyone, and with its themes of self-belief, moving through grief and trauma, and finding the trust in others and ourselves, 'Raya and the Last Dragon' is a worthy part of that legacy.
- Daniel Lammin
Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-raya-and-the-last-dragon-a-solid-return-to-form-for-walt-disney-animation-studios

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Disney purchased Pixar way back in 2006, and many incredible animated films have been released under both banners. Therefore, it’s quite understandable that many people don’t recognize the difference between Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar itself. The latter studio released two movies just last year (Onward, Soul), while the former’s latest original film dates back to 2016’s Moana. So, there was a lot of anticipation for a new animated movie from the studio that gave us classics such as Aladdin, The Lion King, Mulan, and more recently, the Frozen saga. With Don Hall (Big Hero 6) and Carlos López Estrada (Blindspotting) at the helm, and Adele Lim (Crazy Rich Asians) and Qui Nguyen (feature-film debut) tackling the screenplay, did they succeed in delivering a good film?
Well, if I must answer “yes” or “no”, I’ll go with the first one. Let’s start with the positives. The one thing everyone expects from a Disney animated movie is beautiful animation, and Raya and the Last Dragon features tons of gorgeous, creative, jaw-dropping sceneries. The different lands that the story takes the viewers through look impressively realistic, some of them clearly drawing inspiration from real Asian places and culture. The character drawings also look excellent, even though they’re not too far from what we’ve seen from 3D animation in the last few years.
Technically though, my standout goes to James Newton Howard’s addictive, chill-inducing score. From the emotional tracks to the riveting tones that elevate every action sequence, it’s a score that I’ll struggle to get out of my head for the next couple of weeks, especially its main theme. In fact, I’m actually listening to it while writing this review, and I’m feeling full of energy. The sound effects for the Druun monsters are pretty eerie, it’s hard not to feel the weight of their threatening presence, but the inspirational, tear-inducing soundtracks leave me floored. The action scenes are wonderfully shot and animated, bringing high levels of entertainment and excitement to a partially adventure-driven narrative. Raya’s sword fighting is indisputably the most captivating type of battle seen throughout the entire runtime.
Story-wise is where things get a little disappointing, to be completely honest. While the visuals share outstanding imagination and creativity, Adele Lim and Qui Nguyen’s formulaic screenplay is much more straightforward and unsurprising than expected. I knew Raya and the Last Dragon wasn’t going to deliver a groundbreaking narrative, but a videogame-style script is far from being a good alternative. The third act tries to challenge its story’s predictability with one little unexpected moment that I undoubtedly love, but besides not changing the outcome predicted in the first ten minutes of the film, it severely damages a secondary character.
Regarding this last issue, I can’t deny that it’s my main problem with the movie, but I would have to go into spoiler territory to fully explain it. Therefore, I’ll only address the character’s inconsistency, which unfortunately affects the film’s primary message. The main themes revolve around trust and how if we treat other people kindly, they’ll treat us in the same way. A lovely note that parents will surely want to transmit to their kids, without the shadow of a doubt. However, the character in question spends the movie not knowing where to stand, constantly betraying everyone, and even blaming others for something that same character triggered in the first place.
Despite having a significantly negative impact on my enjoyment of the film, the ending does work quite well and compensates for my problem with the said character. Kelly Marie Tran lends her voice to Raya, a protagonist easy to root for due to her clear motivations and important mission, while Awkwafina is very funny as Sisu, a goofy dragon with more depth than what the viewers might expect from the first impression. Everyone in the cast delivers extraordinary voice work, and every character has some sort of captivating trait that makes the audience support them, except for you know who. Having in mind that kids are indeed the target audience, I’m positive all will feel delighted with this movie.
Boasting a predominantly Asian American cast, all delivering exceptional voice work, Raya and the Last Dragon follows a partially disappointing, formulaic narrative but compensates it with stunning animation, a chill-inducing score, and quite a nice ending. Walt Disney Animation Studios returns with an original story that lacks surprising elements, lending all the creativity and imagination to its entertaining, fast-paced adventure packed with undeniably impactful visuals and incredibly riveting action sequences. Despite a significant problem with an inconsistent character that profoundly affects my enjoyment of the film, all other characters are extremely likable, goofy, and well-written. A delightful message about trust and treating others kindly is ultimately well-transmitted to the viewers, which I hope parents will show their kids. Final remark: James Newton Howard’s score will not leave your minds for a long, long time.
Rating: B

In a magical land known as Kumandra; Humans and Dragons co-exist in harmony. When a threat in the form of creatures known as Druun arrive and threaten to destroy everything; the Dragons combine their power to defeat them but in doing so all but one of the Dragons remains.
In the new Disney animated film “Raya and the Last Dragon”; audiences are introduced to the narrative of the story by Raya (Kelly Marie Tran), who tells that the world has become fractured and she is to blame. A sacred relic that the Dragons used to Defeat the Druun has given her kingdom prosperity but the surrounding kingdoms all named after various parts of a Dragon are envious of their position.
When Raya’s father Chief Benja (Daniel Dae Kim); attempts to unite the other kingdoms, a tragic betrayal results in the relic becoming fractured with each kingdom taking a fragment. As if this situation was not bad enough; the fracturing of the relic ushers in the return of the Druun and they quickly resume turning everything not protected by a barrier of water to stone.
The story then jumps years into the future where Raya and her faithful companion Tuk Tuk (Alan TudyK) are searching the rivers of the kingdoms in an effort to find the location where the last Dragon Sisu (Awkwafina) is rumored to have been sleeping for 500 years.
Raya is eventually able to locate Sisu who is a very playful and animated creature and the two set off to save the day by obtaining the missing fragments through any means necessary. Naturally, their journey will be filled with dangers, adventure, and humor, as the various kingdoms have their own unique visual style and characters; some of whom join with Raya on her quest to provide much-needed support, perspective, and at times; humor.
The movie is visually amazing as the artists clearly were inspired to create a world that combines elements of many Asian cultures yet has its own unique traits. I marveled at the details of the water and ripples and how the railings on a boat showed uneven discoloration and wear in just a casual scene where the characters talked. It is this attention to detail that really adds to the magic of the film as well as the immersion into fantasy.
The supporting cast was great and there are some characters I do not wish to spoil who practically steals every scene in which they are in. My wife and I were captivated from the very start as Disney has created a film that embodies much of their classic themes and yet expands upon them to create a film the entire family will enjoy.
The movie will be released in cinemas and via a paid option for Disney+ subscribers. We attended a press screening at a cinema; our first in almost a year and found the setup to be very safe and it was amazing to see such visual splendor on a big screen.
Disney has once again created a new classic and has given audiences the magic that they are known for at a time when it is most needed.
4 stars out of 5.

**A decent kids' movie, but my lack of Pokémon fandom probably kept me from appreciating the film more than I did.**
I heard good things about this movie for years but never sat down to watch it until my three-year-old started saying "Pikachu" when she saw him in an ad. So we gave it a shot, and she really liked all the little creatures and noises. I enjoyed the movie fine, but after watching the Sonic movies recently, I had high expectations that expected. Justice Smith did a great job interacting with the CG characters, and Ryan Reynolds' voice acting was as fantastic as I expected. Detective Pikachu wasn't bad, but I kept feeling like I needed to be more of a Pokémon fan to enjoy the movie more. The whole climax and reveal of the evil plot to merge people with Pokémon was kind of lame to me, so this movie fell short of Sonic or Puss in Boots or Minions. I didn't mind it, and I'm sure I will end up watching it more times than I wanted, but there are other kids' movies I enjoyed more.

I had no hope for this...
It made me a believer.
Live action cgi based Pokemon CAN happen and CAN deliver.
Perfect cast. Mr. Mime freaks me out. Ryan Reynolds as Pikachu just was the best casting decision ever.

Having never played the "Detective Pikachu" game, I can't attest as to the film's faithfulness to the source material. As a movie on its own merits and with a passing knowledge of Pokemon, I found that I enjoyed this more than I thought I would going in. It has a decent narrative structure (although the villain reveal is a little out-of-left-field; they probably could have used a little more buildup) and likable if somewhat cookie -cutter characters. But, WOW, is the tone inconsistent! Most of the movie gets surprisingly serious and dark early on, and for parts of the film Ryan Reynolds feels more like comic relief. Expect emotional whiplash from this one. Still, it's a fair movie that at least fans of Pokemon will likely enjoy.

The movie did not have the best story, it was very much like the original Pokemon the Movie where Ash dies, in the hands of Mewtwo, just switched up a little. The animation and visual affects were really well done. There were some funny parts, although a lot of it seemed really dry.