All aboard the familiar express that's bound for averageville.
A strange one this, the groundswell opinion on internet forums by film fans of various ages is one of contempt, whilst on the professional critical front reviews are more favourable, certainly on the plus side. Bad Neighbours is neither a 1/10 or a 7 - 8 - 9/10 movie, it's sits somewhere in the middle at averageville station still awaiting the signal for go.
Trying to pitch together frat comedy and middle aged comedy worries is a dangerous idea, more so when the entire film comes off as a sketch show. Too many gags fall flat on their face here, the makers straining too hard to make something viable for a cross generational audience to laugh at. It mostly feels like ad nauseum, like we have been here before, seen it before and worn the tight fitting t-shirt.
Rose Byrne and Seth Rogen deserve better than this, yet they are the only ones keeping the picture watchable, where even as they are forced to fumble around with weak willed gross - cum - sex comedy sketches (improvised or otherwise), there's a pull from them that at least gives off a grounded reality vibe. There's also a couple of comedy gold moments, of which do not need to be spoilt here.
So it's not a total loss per se, but its comedy longevity is sure to be brief. 5/10

'Family drama' meets 'Teen party'. An awesome concept that was wasted with the bad casting. I never enjoyed Zac Efron's presence in any movie. I consider him one of the worst, according to my taste in actors and their performances. And again this movie crashed down because of him, otherwise somehow it could have been an enjoyable flick, especially with the stars like Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne in it.
These two guys tried to lift it up, but the other side of the story failed. The two unmatched set of the cast that did not pay off as one as what the audience wanted, the fun. So it is kind of mixed feeling to me about the movie like half enjoyed. The end wide opens for a sequel, if there's one I hope the couple would retain their place, but the rest needs a fresh start, especially not Zac again please.
6/10

Discredited journalist "Michael Blomkvist" (Daniel Craig) is invited to undertake some family investigation work by retired industrialist "Henrik Vanger" (Christopher Plummer). It turns out that a young girl disappeared from the family mansion some forty years earlier and he wants to know what happened. Meantime, the enigmatic young "Lisbeth" (Rooney Mara) is trying to break herself free from the influences/perversions of her legal guardian "Bjurman" (Yorick van Wageningen). She, having been the source of the information and investigation that lead to the earlier troubles of "Blomkvist" is particularly adept at survival! As the mystery deepens, the former engages the detection services of the latter and their search for the truth becomes distinctly perilous. The book is great, and this adaptation does it justice for the most part. Perhaps the screenplay could have been a little tighter, the first half hour takes it's time to get going, but once we have been introduced to this top notch cast representing the somewhat dysfunctional family then the pace of the film really hots up. For once, Craig delivers well and there are strong performances from Steven Berkoff, Stellan Skarsgård and Plummer ensuring that things build nicely to a denouement that, though perhaps not too surprising, is patiently and tensely delivered by David Fincher. Every bit as good as the first film version of this tale, a testament to what an A-list cast can do with a strong story and creative direction. Well worth a watch.

A mega-grumpy George Cluney is always worth watching. A nice upbeat "We can change our own future for the better" movie. It's bright, colourful and inoffensive.

Wish it was greater, but for what it is it's still enjoyable.
'Tomorrowland' is an intriguing futuristic film, it doesn't really delve as deep into its potential-filled premise as it should but it scratches the surface and it makes for - just about - solid viewing. The special effects are very nice, also.
As for the casting, I guess it could've been better. However, I did like the main quartet of Britt Robertson (Casey), George Clooney (Frank), Raffey Cassidy (Athena) and Hugh Laurie (David) - the latter has a good rant late on. I rate the way the story is told, mostly in retrospective by Robertson and Clooney - it keeps it interesting.
I just feel more should've been done with this, given it's fairly entertaining even in its current state and has a load of potential. Either way, I did narrowly like it.

I have to say that I quite enjoyed Tomorrowland despite its way too common mistake of being quite a bit nonsensically preachy to satisfy the current politically correct view of what is “wrong” with the world today. Filtering out those parts this is a quite enjoyable, visually very entertaining, family movie. If you have strong opinions about certain things then you might want to be with your kids when watching this one. Personally I consider my oldest son to be quite capable of making his own opinions and as for the two younger kinds I try to point out the pro’s and con’s and let them grow up to make their own mistakes.
Having that out of the way this is a visually quite wonderful movie. it is of course quite CGI enhanced but in a good way. It is a Disney movie after all so you would expect, at least I did, some “artistic freedom” as far as the scenery is concerned.
The story is actually a quite lovely “fairy tale” kind of story about a “wonderland” far far away. Initially it is a wee bit difficult to get a grip of what is happening since it all moves about all over the place a bit. If you can overcome that first disorientation it does indeed get somewhat sensible after a while. Having said that I mean “sensible” in the context of not only a wild and whacky science fiction movie but in the context of a wild and wacky science fiction movie aimed at the younger part of the audience. Despite the scientific blurb thrown around in the last half of the movie do not for a minute believe that any of the script writers have more scientific knowledge than the average Hollywood script writer which is…zero.
To me the enjoyment of this movie came from the childish fantasy style (it does have quite a bit of a fairly tale story over it), from the rather enjoyable cinematic effects, quite a bit of cool action and last but not least … George Clooney. Actually that is not entirely fair. George was part of it but what I really liked was the recruiting android all the way from the start. When Clooney entered the scene both him and the android pretty much stole the scene. I am afraid that the Newton girl, for a lot of the time, felt more like a “plot element” than a main character to me.
I have to say that I quite liked the scenes in Paris as well. Sorry guys but I do live in France after all. The Eiffel Tower scenes where quite enjoyable and I do like the touch where they used Mr. Eiffel’s apartment at the top of the tower as a scenery. Actually I am not sure how many people actually know that there is an apartment (now a museum) up there. The stuff about a hidden room and a hidden [naah, that would be a spoiler] beneath the tower is of course truly nonsensical.
So, bottom line, if Disney would not have gone down the line of trying to make a political statement, and I do not care what that statement was except that it was blunt, obvious and unconcealed, then this movie would have gotten another star or two. I cannot justify giving it much lower than what I did since it was, technically speaking, a quite good and entertaining movie. However, movies for children is not the medium to make a statement unless you believe that you are living in a socialist state a ‘la the Soviet Union.

Good movie. Just like a normal type of Tom Cruise movie. Where he kicks lots of butte. In this one he's like a ghost. Trying to be like the bourne identity. Still a decent movie though.

So five, ostensibly unconnected, people are picked off walking along the street by a sniper. Surprisingly, the police manage to apprehend the culprit pretty quickly but are bemused when he asks them to summon "Jack Reacher" (Tom Cruise) who, as it happens, was already on his way to the city. The defence attorney "Helen" (Rosamund Pike) is trying to elicit some help from "Reacher", but this former criminal investigator wants to nail the man's ass firmly to the slats. When the accused is reduced to a coma after being beaten up on a prison bus, the two start to work in earnest on this seemingly open and shut case and we gradually discover that, well there is a great deal more to discover...! It's way too long, this, and takes the best part of an hour for us to get past the character establishment and who's got a grudge bits, also Pike is really quite sterile with her portrayal of the dogged lawyer - but once Cruise gets into his stride the story starts to pick up quite interestingly with plenty of action, a few twists and an ending that reminded me a bit of "Highlander" (1986). Eye-candyman Jai Courtney is still as wooden as a door post but does enough here, as do Richard Jenkins and the sparingly, but effectively, used Werner Herzog. Cruise has made loads of these films that showcase his talents in high-end action films and this fits neatly into the middle of the pile. Not bad, but I've already forgotten it.

You think I'm a hero? I am not a hero. And if you're smart, that scares you. Because I have nothing to lose.
It got off on the wrong foot, fans of the Lee Child novels were up in arms about the casting of Tom Cruise in the title role. He didn't fit the profile it was said, scorn was poured on the film, quite often by people who hadn't even seen it! So how refreshing to find that since I personally have no affinity to the Child books, and having never read anything by the author, I found a wonderfully old fashioned thriller.
Reacher the character is a damn fine creation, an ex military bad ass who doesn't get found unless he wants to get found. He gets involved with jobs that need solving, utilising his special skills to close out the mysteries. Here he pitches up along side defence attorney Helen Rodin (Rosamund Pike) when an ex army sniper apparently at random kills five people and then mentions Reacher's name during interrogation. Cue twists and turns, rocks upturned for covert clues and a shady road to be trawled to get to the crux of the matter.
Cruise as Reacher is superb, where under the astute directing and writing of Christopher McQuarrie we are left in no doubt this is a cool no nonsense hard man, loved by the ladies and feared by not just the crims, but also the law authorities. None of which is overkilled, it's subtle in execution, McQuarrie doesn't need to turn his film into a blitzkrieg of CGI blunderbuss multiplex pandering. Action is smartly staged, the violence brutal without being course, while the story is delightful in how it gleefully wrong foots the viewers in plot dynamics and sly humour.
The deal is closed out via the sterling supporting turns to Cruise, with Pike, Robert Duvall, Werner Herzog and Jai Courtney adding considerably to this splendid Cruise and McQuarrie broth. In spite of divisive reviews and reports, Jack Reacher in filmic form has risen above that to become a success. Hooray! 7.5/10

A man shoots six people in a park, seemingly at random. The evidence is obvious and the police catch him short after. When asked about the murders, all he says (or rather writes) is "Get Jack Reacher". They do, and while Jack thinks he is only here to bury him (whatever that actually means), he soon finds out that the rabbit hole goes a bit further than he originally thought. Now Jack is looking to put together the pieces of a much larger puzzle.
This movie has the ring of a simple action movie with a small twist. The twist, actually, is quite obvious if you think about what is happening in the beginning of the movie.
I remember seeing the trailer a long time ago, and it painted a picture of a comedy, but this movie is not that. It might have one or two funny fight scenes (and dialogue with Robert Duvall), but it is actually quite dark. This is kinda what saved the movie a bit for me, having judged it beforehand.
Tom Cruise is... Tom Cruise. At least in the way that we have seen him protrayed in the most recent years. The silent, cool guy who knows how to handle the problems, and who seems to always be one step ahead of everyone. I am not a big fan of this guy, and therefore, ultimately, not a big fan of Jack Reacher, however, it is slightly better than I thought it would be. And Werner Herzog has a nice little cameo, that movie aficionados will surely enjoy, being the great director that he is.
_Last words... if you like Tom Cruise, go for it. If you like a nice organized action movie, much like the many Bourne movies... go for it. If you want more than superficial characters and a very straightforward plot, this is not the movie for you._

'The Mummy Returns' feels to me to be a downgrade on the original, though I still gained the desired entertainment from it. There is an absolute barrage of special effects used in this though, I said in my previous review about it aging badly - it's worse here.
I still wouldn't say that the below par effects affected my enjoyment terribly much, like last time, but due to the (what felt like) increase of its usage it definitely becomes a bit of an eyesore this time out. The Scorpion King towards the conclusion looks particularly poor, I gotta say.
Cast-wise, I could copy and paste what I said about the 1999 flick. Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz are good together, I like the addition of their son (played well by Freddie Boath) into the mix. Also in my review of 'The Mummy', I noted that I wanted more of Oded Fehr, well I got that wish delivered here.
Quite interesting to see Dwayne Johnson appear as The Scorpion King, a character (and therefore franchise; five of them!) that I never knew existed until very recently. Given Johnson's upward acting trajectory since these films, I assume he didn't appear in all of those other spin-offs; I'll soon find out, intrigued to watch 'em either way.

This is, actually, every bit as good as it's daddy - but why, oh why, do we always to have to introduce children into the mix? In this case Fredddie Boath joins the gang of intrepid adventurers trying to save the world from the scourge of a recently re-reincarnated mummy (a re-born, born again sort of thing!). He finds the Bracelet of Anubis, gets kidnapped and off we go on a fun race against time across the desert encountering all sorts of dangers and evil critters along the way. This one also introduces us to the "Scorpion King" (least said, I think) and Sommers, again, keeps this all moving along apace. It is just entertainment and if you look for nothing more then - of it's genre, it isn't disappointing.

Yeah, right, and no harm ever came from reading a book. You remember how that one went?
After the financial success of "The Mummy" two years earlier, the sequel was inevitable. The big players from the first film are back, Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah, Arnold Vosloo and Oded Fehr. Stephen Sommers once again directs (and writes), Patricia Velasquez comes in to be a main player after her cameo in the first film, and young Freddie Boath plays the son of Rick and Evelyn who are now married. This time the cameo goes to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson who plays The Scorpion King and who is replaced by a very bad CGI version of himself at film's finale.
When the second sequel, "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" (2008), was released, Brendan Fraser went on record as saying that for "The Mummy Returns" they basically remade the film they had already made in 1999! This is absolutely true, some new characters and an expansion on the O'Connell romance have been put in to beef it up, while some Zombie Pygmies are around to add extra monster factor, but yes! It's a re-tread only with more money spent, more effects (and better effects apart from Scorpion King) and more noise. This actually is OK for those who enjoyed the first film immensely, because "Returns" is every bit as enjoyable as family blockbuster entertainment. The Worldwide box offices rang to the tune of over $330 million in profit. That's a lot of happy families you would think!.
So yes, it's a bit of a cheat, but much like the film before it, it gets away with it because the makers do everything they can to entertain the action/adventure loving crowd. With legions of Anubis warriors, those awesome Pygmies and the all round funny by-play between a cast comfortable with the material (again), "The Mummy Returns" delivers exactly what can reasonably be expected of it. 7/10

***Bigger is NOT always better; here it’s overKILL***
I'm a fan of the first movie from 1999 and was naturally looking forward to this 2001 sequel. I originally saw it at the theater with two friends; after about 10-15 minutes we were all bored by the bombardment of action and F/X. We just laid back in our seats in tedium for the remaining couple hours.
It's a curious thing that too much action and F/X in a film can be boring. It may not seem logical but it's true; and "The Mummy Returns" is Exhibit A. I usually give certain movies second and third chances in the hope that my first impression may have been in error, which I’ve done with this one over the years. Unfortunately I keep finding myself relatively detached from the story even though there are all kinds of exciting things going on; or, at least, things that SHOULD HAVE been exciting.
"The Mummy Returns" has a lot going for it: A great cast, locations, costumes, cinematography, F/X, etc. (although some of the CGI is woefully cartoony, like the Scorpion King at the close). It has great Indiana Jones appeal. Unfortunately it all adds up to a forgettable piece of cinematic dung. What went wrong? Simply put, no substance. "The Mummy Returns" abandons the characters while the plot is utilized as a clothesline for action and F/X sequences.
The flick curiously has so many ingredients right, but it somehow utterly fails to absorb the viewer. It is unadulterated cinematic JUNK. It should be utilized in filmmaking classes as the quintessential example of style over substance or overKILL: having all the right elements, including budget, and yet stupefyingly fumbling the ball.
The film runs 2 hours, 10 minutes (overlong), and was shot in England, Morocco, Jordan and Egypt.
GRADE: C-

Suffers a little from the belief commonly held by sequels that "Bigger is better". Does expand the mythology (arguably not a positive), but more importantly is still a good time, thanks primarily to the relationship between the Brendan Fraser and Rachael Weisz characters.
_Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

He's the man alright.
Wanted is loosely based on the comic book miniseries of the same name by Mark Millar. It's directed by Timur Bekmambetov and stars James McAvoy, Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman, Thomas Kretschmann, Common, Terence Stamp and Konstantin Khabensky. The storyline follows Wesley Gibson (McAvoy), a frustrated and downtrodden office worker who discovers that he is the son of a professional assassin when he is saved by Fox (Jolie) from being assassinated himself in a supermarket. Initially he is baffled and out of his depth, but upon meeting the secret "Fraternity" headed by Sloan (Freeman), Gibson starts to undergo training to fulfil his destiny as a "Fraternity" hit-man.
One of the better things about popcorn action movies is when there is a geek coming good and kicking ass. Be it super-heroes or average Joe's finding something extra, having the rise of the meek get tough at its core is normally a winner. So it is with Wanted, the US directorial debut of Night/Day Watch helmer, Timur Bekmambetov. It's not so much that McAvoy's anxiety riddled office worker gets to play guns, sports cars and hang with a lithe Angelina Jolie - it's that he, courtesy of a good source, gets to not care about the killing. The film may not be as dark as the source material, but the essence of it is there with corruption and violence at the core. The story, as bonkers as it is, is simplified into one that features ancient weavers receiving messages depicting targets to be wiped from the planet for the greater good of humanity. Enter the "Fraternity" in modern times, which in the name of good, goes out slotting said targets. Oh but it's not just a case of line someone up in a telescope and pull the trigger, this is more fun than that.
For action movies in this decade, Wanted has few peers. From the intense and brutal training regime that Gibson undertakes, to the number of explosive and inventive sequences that flit in and out of the piece, it delivers pulse raising cinema. There's outrageous car pursuits, car jumps with whirls and crash bangs, speeding trains resplendent with stunts, a train crash sequence that's as good as anything in popcorn world, and then there's the bullets. Curving bullets that either smack into each other or do untold damage to the forehead of some unknowing target. That the makers are not aiming for the PG-13 market is an obvious bonus, for it allows them to fully payoff on the fights and blood letting. Even those that come with funny and inventive gimmicks. Bekmambetov is having fun, the nature of the beast is a haven for his fast-cutting and slow-mo dalliances, while the noise that thunders out of the speakers pulls one further into the action.
McAvoy steps up to the action plate with great success, at times charming yet pathetic, at others totally scary, he revels in the chance to carry a movie of such adrenalin fuelled excess. Jolie too comes out with much credit, the role of Fox giving her the chance to shine, unlike Lara Croft, as a charismatic action girl. While Freeman does what Freeman does well, be straight and oddly classy. Not since John Woo's action berserker Face-Off 11 years previously has the action genre been this much fun and exciting. The pace may not be perfect, and some scenes will be just too ridiculous for some demanding critics (they of course realise the tongue in cheek/nudge in the ribs that's going on?), but regardless, Wanted has taken the action genre to another level. Lets hope it's not 11 years till we have to wait for the next bar raiser. 9/10

I typically never write a review on a film that I've already seen more than once, because I insist on the review reflecting my first (and strongest) impression of the film. But after watching Wanted for what must be the 5th or 6th time now, I suddenly felt like writing something anyway, so here I go.
Let me begin by saying, this is one strange film. Strange in the sense that it's literally like a train wreck that you can't keep your eyes off because it's so fascinating to watch. And you almost feel sick with guilt and exhilaration because you're enjoying it so much. Violence never looked so gorgeous before...
Wanted is about a guy named Wesley Gibson, who is such a hopeless, pathetic dweeb that even Google won't return any results when he types in his own name. He is "rescued" from his pitiful cubicle existence by a gorgeous woman named Fox, who recruits him into an organisation of assassins known as The Fraternity, supposedly because they believe he is the only person who can kill the man who killed his father. Little does he know just how drastically his life will actually change once he agrees to join them.
The casting of the film is spot-on. James McAvoy has already proved himself to be a versatile actor and he is very believable as a weak push-over, who finds confidence in the fact that group of trained assassins apparently believe in his abilities. He also makes his character likable and fun to watch, because he delivers it with a sense of humour and you can actually relate to him because his situation is so understandable. Basically, he's just another slave to the wage, looking for a way to break free. This way is initially offered to him by Angelina Jolie, and who could say no to a woman like that... Ms Jolie plays a role that seems like it could only have been written specifically for her. Who else could play a beautiful and deadly assassin who's charismatic and covered in tattoos? She could and would kill you in a heartbeat, and yet you just want to be near her. Morgan Freeman plays Sloan, the leader of the Fraternity, and, well... I hardly need to elaborate on this one, do I? He makes pretty much every film he's in worth watching, and that's all I need to say.
Now, I titled this review 'beautiful garbage'. That's not so much because the film itself is garbage, because it's not, but rather because the events portrayed in this film are so brutal and merciless that they could only come from a very dark and rotten place. The 'beautiful' is directed at the visual effects, because everything ranging from camera techniques to production design to action choreography is so beautifully done, so thrillingly eye-popping that it would almost make you forget that you're watching people get slaughtered, beat up and maimed. Tons of blood flow, brains are splattered against the wall and yet you can't take your eyes off that beautifully designed bullet. That awesome tattoo on Angelina Jolie's hand interlacing with the engravings on her gun. Those mind-blowing car chase scenes. That guy jumping through the glass out of a skyscraper just to finish his "job"... This film is visual effects executed to perfection, elevating said perfection to a whole new level.
It's all so pretty to watch that it would almost make you able to forgive the writers the overpowering lack of realism. Almost.
The staggering amount of ideas and actions that are 98% of the time either inconsistent, improbable or flat-out impossible would in any other case surely put any screenwriter out of work. With a film like this, it's literally only the wrapper that makes the candy sweet. It just goes to show that sometimes, making something really, really pretty can make it worth watching, just so long as you're willing to suspend every inch of disbelief for the sake of watching pretty pictures. Nature, science, biology and every other form of technical factuality is being put to the test here, which is not to say it's basically just being thrown out the window... But hey, I can promise you you're going to get to see a guy get in a car the way you've never seen before. And a girl get in a train in a fashion that defies every rule of physics... It's all worth it for a totally cool, put-your-brain-in-stand-by-mode kind of action flick.
Director Timur Bekmambetov has obviously tried his darnedest to make his mark in Hollywood with his first English spoken, big-budget effort, and may I say, he could've done a lot worse. Not to mention the fact that he has managed to recruit a few very big names to top the bill, this is definitely a Hollywood debut to be proud of. I can only hope he will continue to work with the same excellent crew in the future, because although only the sound department was nominated for an Oscar, camera and visual effects would have definitely deserved a nod from the Academy too.
In a nutshell, Wanted is an 110 minutes of gorgeous, eye-pleasing nonsense with great action and one very beautiful lady... I for one can't wait for the sequel.
_(July 2012)_

**It starts with good premises, but is lost due to a miserable script and a direction that needs direction.**
Ari Aster is not a director that I consider good. This is his second feature film, and he didn't show great talent for directing here. However, worse than his direction is his absolute lack of writing skills: the script he wrote here is mediocre, to be nice, and completely kills the film.
What I liked most about this film was the extraordinary cinematography, full of color and light and joy that makes us feel the warmth and natural vibrancy of the beginning of Summer. By largely setting his film in a rural ambience, Aster was almost able to demonize urban life, portraying urban environments as gloomy, dark, sinister and depressing. In fact, he even creates a link between the main character's agony and the depressive environments of urban life: there is not a sole positive or warm image before the characters set foot on the fields of Sweden... or rather Hungary, the country where most of the filming took place, perhaps taking advantage of the tax benefits that were given to foreign film productions there.
The sets and costumes could not be more appealing, especially to audiences who are already interested in Nordic traditions, witchcraft, Wicca or new age paganism: we have runes, we have hippie-style flowers in their hair, we have people in white and barefoot dancing around poles, we have fertile and sexually desirable youngsters, we have the recreational and ritualistic consumption of drugs and hallucinogens, we have happy people living in a community, with no private property and in polyamory... it seems like a John Lennon dream. This is beautiful, attractive and seductive in the same way that it is unbelievable and contradicts the basic human instincts: the appetite for violence and the desire to have things. Unfortunately, and largely due to a poorly written script, the film is no more than that. The director/screenwriter was unable to give the film a conclusion or create a credible threat. Clearly inspired by another film (“The Wicker Man”), it lacks a good ending, there are too many stupid scenes (for example, when one of the characters cries heartlessly and is surrounded by a choir that almost turns it into a song) and there are too many loose ends in this story, which becomes more and more idiotic. To make everything more ignoble, there is a subliminal anti-Christian message that becomes clear when we see that the most vilified character is named Christian...
The actors are not to blame for the misery that this film was. Florence Pugh is the actress who stands out the most and does the most interesting work, but Vilhelm Blomgren also offers us a well-done performance. Will Poulter, one of the actors I know best here, seems underutilized, with a character that only appears occasionally and is irrelevant to the plot. William Harper also does what he can, but he doesn't have the space or material to show what he's worth. In the European cast, Isabelle Grill and Gunnel Fred are the actresses who deserve the most attention: each of them, in their own way, tried to be mysterious and unsettling, and they achieved this in the way they had imagined.

**Not what it appears to be... I really did not-see this coming...**
This is one of those horror movies that is actually really deep and symbolical and works on multiple levels and has multiple stories hidden within the surface narrative and in this case it's actually 3 stories that are told at the same time, though only the surface narrative is picked up consciously, the other 2 are picked up subconsciously and that's what makes it disturbing.
Be sure to watch the extended cut, because only there does it really become apparent what the other 2 stories are about. So, here go the spoilers, cause now I am gonna say what I believe those 3 themes are. Obviously on the surface it's a horror movie, but beneath that it's a drama about relationships and about breaking up - some people pick up on that first hidden theme/narrative and so they find it boring because they expected a horror movie, but what they get is an emotional drama.
But no one has consciously picked up on the 3rd narrative - or at least I have never seen anyone mention it - even though it's very obvious when you watch the extended cut. The third genre of movies is that it's a movie about the 3rd Reich and related National Socialist propaganda, ideology and atrocities committed and that's the aspect everyone only picks up subconsciously and that makes everyone feel uncomfortable watching this movie, but without really knowing why.
Which also explains some of the criticism, such as Swedes and Pagans complaining that their culture and ideology isn't portrayed accurately. Of course it isn't, because that's not the culture or ideology it's trying to portray! So the 4th and ultimate genre is that it's really a biting political satire that uses all the other genres as cover.
It's like the travel movies that the Soviet Union published that make the Soviet Union look like some kind of socialist Disneyland. And as long as you were a tourist who was willing to only go to the places he was told to go and to just gloss over all the labor camps and atrocities, it kinda was! And so what those movies were for socialism, this movie is for National Socialism - a sorta satirical video travel guide into a promised National Socialist fantasy land and Utopian paradise that never existed and that only a complete psychopath could ever try to propagate as something desirable.

Of course creators of this movie are big fans of the wicker man movie(excellent 60's movie). Very slow action. Didn't got bored ,but in the end not fully satisficed.

This place raises more red flags than Summerisle, an overlong film and the characters are as thick as pigsh*t. I was so hoping the finale would deliver the goods but it ended up as a less memorable 'The Wicker Man'.
But, but, but I do admire it.

Hey, honey - let's take a trip to a surreal drug-fuelled Swedish festival with cruel pagan tendencies? Yes, I know - it all sounds too bonkers; and yes, for the main, it is. I think you have to be in the zone if you are going to get anything from this otherwise it could fairly be described as nonsense. There are shades of "The Wicker Man" here, but this is nowhere near as well written or as scary. Florence Pugh and Jack Reynor try their best but this just doesn't really work. On the plus side - it is beautifully shot - the purity of the light is amazing.

_**“The Wicker Man” meets “The Village”**_
Invited by their genial Swedish friend, four college students from New York take a vacation to rural Sweden to experience a Midsummer celebration at a commune. A couple of them are cultural anthropology students, who are naturally interested in the friendly isolated group and their odd ceremonies. The situation goes from friendly and curious to shocking. Florence Pugh and Jack Reynor play the American protagonists.
“Midsommar” (2019) is folk horror that plays out like “The Wicker Man” (1973/2006) meets “The Village” (2004) with elements of “The Lords of Salem” (2012). The topic of visiting a secluded pagan religious community and the increasing challenges thereof can be seen in other flicks like “Ogre” (2008), “The Ritual” (2017) and “Apostle” (2018), as well as the recent Indie “Devil’s Island” (2021).
If you like these kinds of movies “Midsommar” delivers the goods. Writer/director Ari Aster did his homework, combining fact with fiction, old and new. There’s an insightful comparison between the lack of social intimacy in modern Western culture and the family-like camaraderie of the remote Commune. Pugh makes for an effective protagonist and there’s some convincing gore. It’s a professionally made piece no doubt.
Unfortunately, the first half is more compelling than the second, which devolves into tedious ceremonies and the corresponding gobbledygook. Hammer’s “The Mummy” (1959) had the same issue but was mercifully an hour shorter. “Midsommar” needed tightened up for a more gripping viewing experience, but directors generally don’t like to cut scenes from their ‘baby.’
The film runs 2 hours, 27 minutes, and was shot in Budakeszi, Hungary (Hårga), as well as Korda Studios, Etyek, and Budapest, Hungary; Dani’s apartment was shot in Brooklyn, New York.
GRADE: B-

An impressive work, “Midsommar” is Ari Aster’s follow-up to “Herditary,” a decent if flawed horror film.
“Midsommar” follows Dani, who, after the tragic loss of her parents and sister, decides to follow her increasingly distant boyfriend and his friends on a trip to Sweden to visit the pagan cult commune their roommate, Pelle, grew up in. While seemingly open and friendly, it becomes obvious fairly quickly that something else is going on here. The obvious comparisons to “The Wicker Man” are not uncalled for.
First, in the interest of full disclosure, this review is based on the nearly three-hour Director’s Cut of the film rather than the theatrical release. I haven’t even seen the theatrical release, so I can’t attest as to what was added in the nearly 30 new minutes. I will say that the Director’s Cut is pretty seamless and doesn’t seem to have any superfluous scenes.
Second, we need to start with the elephant in the room and address how this compares to “Hereditary,” which as I stated was okay but flawed. The major flaw in that film is that it has its own internal consistency, but doesn’t have consistency from an audience standpoint. There’s only the most minor of hints as to the truth, and it’s clear that in that world, such things were possible, but the audience isn’t really let in on the answer until the end. The audience has to think about it to get that internal logic. I’m usually the type that doesn’t like spoonfeeding information to the audience, but this withheld a little too much.
Okay, that was “Hereditary.” So how does “Midsommar” compare? Well, it’s far better in terms of letting the audience in on the secret and revealing its internal logic. But, sometimes it’s too good at it. There’s not much of a secret. You know what’s ultimately coming.
However, interestingly this is where the brilliance of the movie actually comes in. Much like life and sex, it’s about the journey, not the destination. We know where we’re going, but the fun is in seeing how we get there. And it’s a fun and colorful journey. This is bright daytime horror, taking place in Sweden at Midsommar when there is very little darkness at night, which itself could be a metaphor in that we can see the end and know where we’re going.
So, why only 4 stars? The film is great, but definitely not perfect and has a couple deep flaws. I could give the film a little more credit if it did conceal the end a little more, giving a less obvious “twist.” The other is that it sticks pretty close to traditional character archetypes for horror films. If you don’t know what I mean, this was very well addressed in “Cabin in the Woods.” A little more variety and a little added creativity could have elevated “Midsommar’s” score. While it’s still great, don’t expect a perfect film.

_Midsommar_ might genuinely be my big disappointment for 2019. I'm not saying it's bad. But coming into this on the back of not only the crazy good _Hereditary_ from last year, but also the **gushing** praise from the online horror community, I guess my expectations were a little high. It doesn't make me feel good to say it, but honestly I'm glad I didn't see this in the cinema. Firstly because I think I might've been a little mad if I had forked out $25 to see this, based on the experience I ended up happening, but also secondly, because I don't much feel like going blind in the theatre from the sheer white exposure that takes up 97% of _Midsommar's_ runtime.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
This was easily one of my most anticipated movies of the year. Hereditary was my favorite film of 2018, so obviously, Ari Aster's second feature grabbed my full attention from the very first announcement. Fortunately, even though Midsommar is only being released now in my country, I was able to stay away from spoilers, as well as from any sort of images or clips. As you might expect, this is not a typical horror movie, even though it's being marketed as belonging to the genre. Sure, it has some horror stuff that indisputably connects it to the genre, but it definitely doesn't play out to scare audiences or make you have nightmares at night.
Hereditary was quite divisive among audiences due to the lack of traditional jump scares and generic entertainment, besides it being too excessive regarding spiritualism for the general public. Midsommar is undoubtedly going to be even more divisive. First of all, it drags. There's no denying it. The first weird cult scene only occurs about one hour in, which in a 140-minute runtime is a bit too far ahead. Granted, it's one of the most shocking and horrific sequences in the daylight I've ever seen, but its build-up (extremely well-done) takes a big part of the second act, slowing down the pacing too much.
Additionally, it's a film that entirely relies its entertainment value on the feeling of shock instead of fear. If you didn't enjoy Aster's first feature because it didn't have enough scary sequences, Midsommar isn't going to convert you to being a fan of his work. Similarly to Ad Astra (just released last week), it's a story that requires the audience to care about more than only superficial aspects. If you go in expecting to leave your brain outside just so you can be uncloudedly entertained, then you might want to think again. I can't stress this enough: you need to pay attention to what you're watching!
Hints to what the story holds for us are everywhere, especially in the walls. Through paintings, runes, and hand-drawings, Ari Aster spreads basically all the information you need to better understand where the movie is going. It's a film about two key themes: how to deal with grief, and how to handle a complicated relationship. These are the issues that people should be able to acknowledge and understand how they're being developed. I love how Aster addresses the latter topic (he wrote this screenplay after he ended a relationship of his own), but I'm disappointed by the way he put the former into the "background".
The first 15-20 minutes deal with what happens to Dani's life, and it's never approached again, even though there's a vague idea of what could have actually happened, by the end of the movie. Regarding the other point, it isn't exactly a "toxic" relationship that we've seen in previous films, but one where each person is waiting for an excuse to leave the other. Hence, some actions feel forced in the hope that they can trigger something. It's a strangely realistic yet uncomfortable take on something a lot of people go through. Technically, this is one of 2019's most fascinating productions.
From the colorful cinematography to the impeccable editing, from the stunningly impressive production design (again, the WALLS!) to the immersive score … Ari Aster is no joke. The way he handles dialogues is a treat to someone like me, who cares so much about engagement through characters speaking. There are so many long takes with Florence Pugh giving her all, just raw and powerful emotions. It's her career-best performance, no doubt about it. Her character's storyline is partially what brings the "horror" to the narrative. Just like Toni Colette on Hereditary, Pugh is probably going to be ignored during the awards season, as well as the movie's technical achievements since the horror genre still didn't convince enough people to give a shot.
Regarding the other characters, they're my main issue. They simply felt like plot devices. Will Poulter (Mark) is funny as the comic-relief guy, but his character, like every other one besides Dani, doesn't do much to make me care about or feel invested in their own subplots (if there are any). They barely have any backstory, and their purpose is basically to help move the plot forward by giving Aster opportunities to show some pagan rituals of some kind. There are incredibly shocking, bloody, and jaw-dropping scenes, some might make you feel uncomfortable, others might make you laugh. But they're all meant to shock you in some shape or form.
Whether you love it or hate it, Midsommar is memorable. If you didn't enjoy Hereditary due to the lack of jump scares, the former isn't for you then. Midsommar requires full attention, patience, and an open-minded mentality. It's not a generic horror flick, so don't go in expecting to be constantly entertained by silly scares. Expectations are everything, so moderate them in the best way possible. It has one of the most abstract ways of addressing a difficult relationship and how to deal with grief, but if you LOOK AT THE WALLS, you'll be able to (maybe) follow the story a bit better.
Technically, Ari Aster delivers a masterful work, with exceptional production design and gorgeous cinematography, plus seamless editing. Florence Pugh carries the story on her shoulders with an astonishingly compelling performance, but her supporting cast didn't do much with their under-developed characters. The film drags a lot, and it can become tedious at some point, but in the end, it's one of those movies that sticks with you. A second viewing may be necessary, and it will probably be a better experience. Can't wait to find out. Go see it!
Rating: B

_**Very poorly advertised as something it isn't; will be sure to frustrate and impress in equal measure**_
> _Methought I was enamoured of an ass._
- William Shakespeare; _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ (1595)
>_Sometimes at pagan shrines they vowed_
>_offerings to idols, swore oaths_
>_that the killer of souls might come to their aid_
>_and save the people. That was their way,_
>_their heathenish hope; deep in their hearts_
>_they remembered hell._
- Seamus Heaney; _Beowulf: A Verse Translation_ (1999)
Much like his feature debut, the excellent _Hereditary_ (2018), writer/director Ari Aster's _Midsommar_ has divided audiences much more than critics. Whereas _Hereditary_ had an 89% critical approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with an average score of 8.26/10, it managed only a 65% audience approval rating, with an average score of 3.43/5, whilst also famously garnering a pitiful D+ CinemaScore. _Midsommar_ currently has an 82% critical approval with a 7.51/10 average, against a 61% audience approval, with a 3.36/5 average and a C+ CinemaScore. This recalls recent films such as Robert Eggers's _The VVitch: A New England Folktale_ (90% with a 7.77/10 average vs 58% with a 3.22/5 average and a C- CinemaScore) and Trey Edward Shults's superb _It Comes At Night_ (87% with a 7.36/10 average vs 44% with a 2.75/5 average and a D CinemaScore). The reason for the discrepancies? In large part it's because all four films were promoted as something they weren't, drawing in audiences who were disappointed that they didn't get what they were expecting; all four were heavily promoted as horrors, when none in fact are (and in the case of _It Comes At Night_, not even remotely close). As for _Midsommar_, it is, at best, a thriller, and I would argue that even that's pushing it. Whereas _Hereditary_ was a study of grief and familial breakdown, it undeniably had horror elements (the floating self-decapitation scene is one of the most haunting images put on screen in decades). In the case of _Midsommar_, however, apart from one very brief moment involving somebody wearing somebody else's skin (don't ask), there's nothing remotely resembling a horror trope, and very little that's thrilling. Which is not necessarily a criticism; I enjoyed the film very much, I simply think the marketing people have once again set the movie up to fail with a lot of the people who will see it.
What _Midsommar_ does have in abundance, however, is dread, which is, of course, very different to horror. More unsettling than frightening, as with _Hereditary_, _Midsommar_ is primarily an allegory built on a foundation of generic tropes – both films begin with paralysing tragedies that almost cripple the protagonist, with the subsequent narrative analysing the psychological reaction to such tragedies by way of various spooky goings-on. And whereas _Hereditary_ dealt with the lengths one may go to shut off deep emotional pain, _Midsommar_ is more interested in what happens when the initial pain of bereavement starts to wear off, especially when the only person one feels one can turn to isn't exactly sympathetic to one's situation. Aster himself has called it a "_breakup movie_", and it's hard to argue against this categorisation, as the story begins and ends with very specific relationship drama. And whilst the characters are grossly underwritten, and the film is painfully predictable (if you're familiar with Robin Hardy's _The Wicker Man_ (1973), chances are that everything you think is going to happen in _Midsommar_ does happen), it's beautifully crafted, brilliantly shot almost entirely in glaring sunlight, and vastly ambitious in scope (it runs 147 minutes). Indeed, it's the type of film where you can tell the director was given an unusual amount of freedom to fulfil their vision. And whilst that can often result in unmitigated disaster (think filmmakers such as Michael Cimino, Richard Kelly, and David Robert Mitchell), much like Jordan Peele's _Us_ (2019), _Midsommar_ avoids the dreaded sophomore slump without necessarily knocking it out of the park.
The film begins as Dani Ardor (a superb Florence Pugh) is hit with the kind of tragedy from which many would find it impossible to recover - her bipolar sister has killed their parents and subsequently committed suicide. Already emotionally fragile and prone to anxiety attacks even before their deaths, the incident sends Dani spiralling into despair, turning for support to her boyfriend Christian (Jack Reynor), an anthropology student struggling to find a topic for his PhD thesis. Unfortunately, for some time, Christian has wanted to break things off with Dani, as he finds her overly needy, and he had been trying to work up to ending the relationship when her family died. The following summer, Dani learns that Christian and fellow students Josh (William Jackson Harper) and Mark (Will Poulter) have been invited by Swedish student Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren) to his ancestral pagan commune in Hårga, where a midsummer celebration that only occurs once every ninety years will be taking place, with Josh planning to write his PhD thesis on the festival, and Mark planning to have sex with as many Swedish girls as he can. Dani is upset that Christian didn't tell her about the trip, and to placate her, he invites her to come, never imagining she will say yes. But she does, much to Mark's disgust, and so the foursome accompany Pelle to Sweden, meeting the disturbingly polite and welcoming members of the commune, as well as English students Connie (Ellora Torchia) and Simon (Archie Madekwe), who were invited by Pelle's brother Ingemar (Hampus Hallberg). It doesn't take long, however, for the visitors to learn that things aren't exactly kosher in the commune - whether it's the elderly couple who fling themselves from the top of a cliff, the pies with pubic hair in them, the "oracle" child specifically bred through incest, the caged bear who seems to have no function in the festival, the strange yellow pyramid building which they are forbidden from entering, the elaborate murals depicting violence and torture, or the communal wailing.
_Midsommar_ originally began life as a slasher movie set in a Swedish commune, until Aster revised the script to focus on a toxic relationship after going through a particularly bad breakup himself. Christian is your garden variety manipulator, who uses Dani's emotional vulnerability against her. For example, in a brilliantly written early scene, after she has learned about the trip, she's understandably upset that he didn't tell her about it, but in the space of just a couple of minutes he manipulates her into apologising to _him_. The core of the story is Dani slowly coming to realise that Christian isn't the man she thought he was, and in a weird way, it's a variation on the female revenge genre. However, whereas usually it's revenge for rape or assault, here it's revenge for being a complete and utter dick. In this sense, the film is primarily an allegory for the process of a young woman's emotional/spiritual awakening independent of the man on whom she thought she had to rely. Indeed, one could take this even further if one reads the character names as symbolic; Dani's surname is Ardor, but she is denied love and passion, and in the paganism of the commune, she's offered something she can't get from a self-serving Christian(ity). Whether _Midsommar_ works for you or not will depend largely on how you respond to this element of the story - if you buy into the notion that Christian is the _de facto_ villain, and that Dani is an emotionally scarred young woman looking for support, you'll get a lot more out of it than if you think Dani is a needy whinger and Christian would do well to be rid of her.
Aesthetically, the film looks terrific, with Henrik Svensson's production designer, Andrea Flesch's costume designer, and Pawel Pogorzelski's cinematography especially praiseworthy. Whereas the US scenes are dark and confined, taking place in small poorly lit rooms with the characters wearing drab costumes, once the film shifts to Sweden, the visual design changes completely. The production design emphasises an open-plan vastness with unlimited space to move, but few places to hide; the cinematography drenches everything in glaring sunlight, which, again, makes it hard to hide; and the costume design focuses on brilliant white, with a smattering of colour. Unlike the vast majority of horror movies, there are few shadows or dark corners, but the film is shot in such a way that the very lack of such is itself disconcerting. The same is true for the always pristine costumes, which suggest that something is just not quite right underneath the veneer of cleanliness and insincere sense of perfection. Indeed, the attention to detail in the presentation of the commune is immensely impressive; the long middle act doesn't really feature much in the way of narrative incident, but it sure does a fine job of creating a _milieu_ that feels completely authentic and lived-in.
There are also some nice individual moments. For example, the choral singing with which the film begins is harshly interrupted by a telephone ringing, suggesting the clash between tradition and modernity that will play out throughout; Dani's hysterical crying upon learning of her family's deaths blends seamlessly with Bobby Krlic's wonderfully discordant music; a superb single-take shot takes Dani from heading to her apartment bathroom to entering the bathroom of an airplane; a high altitude shot showing a car travelling along a country road is imbued with malevolent undercurrent as the car passes under the camera, but rather than turning around to pick the vehicle up on the reverse angle, the camera follows the car by turning downwards, ending up upside-down, signalling to the viewer that things have changed irrevocably for the characters, as if they have crossed a barrier of some kind.
In terms of the narrative design, somewhat unusually, the film wears its predictability on its sleeve, with many of the major narrative beats not only foreshadowed but literally shown to the audience prior to occurring in the story, whether it be the mural that opens the film or the illustrations seen on the walls all over the commune – the _dénouement_ isn't simply hinted at, it's all-but presented to us from the outset. With that in mind, anyone who has seen any folk horror will be able to predict much of what happens. Even if you're only familiar with _The Wicker Man_, you'll still be able to take a decent stab at how things are going to turn out. Of course, this allows the audience to roundly mock the characters' utter obliviousness to what's coming, which is presumably the point. You know that scene in most horror films where you think to yourself "how can they not realise something nasty is going to happen"? _Midsommar_ is like a 147-minute version of that one scene.
As for the acting, much as _Hereditary_ was Toni Collette's, _Midsommar_ belongs entirely to Florence Pugh, who's going from strength-to-strength at the moment. For most of the film, she's on the precipice of a nervous breakdown, with her performance redolent of Shelley Duval in Stanley Kubrick's _The Shining_ (1980). Pugh has already impressed in films as varied as Carol Morley's _The Falling_ (2014), William Oldroyd's _Lady Macbeth_ (2016), Richard Eyre's _King Lear_ (2018) and Stephen Merchant's _Fighting With My Family_ (2019), but _Midsommar_ is easily her best and most layered performance thus far, especially the gamut of contradictory emotions she runs in the batshit insane last 20 minutes. Elsewhere, the performances are all fine, but the actors aren't helped by the script. As Christian, Jack Reynor plays, well, Jack Reynor. There's nothing really wrong with the performance (although he is the least convincing academic ever put on screen), and he does do a decent job of getting the audience to loathe his passive-aggressive persona, but there isn't a huge amount of depth. The same is true of Will Poulter, who plays Mark as the kind of ignorant sex-crazed loudmouth that seems to only exist in the movies and who is never characterised beyond this caricature. As Josh, William Jackson Harper, although a far more believable academic than Reynor, barely registers, whilst Vilhelm Blomgren's Pelle is so one-note and obviously untrustworthy that it pushes suspension of disbelief to breaking point.
As this might suggest, one of the biggest problems with the film is the underwritten characters. This is especially true of Christian, a boyfriend so selfish and uncaring, one wonders how he ever wooed Dani in the first place. Additionally, their relationship is demarcated along painfully stereotypical lines – the emotional female whose need for support becomes overwhelming and the thoughtless bro who is more interested in hanging out with the boys than comforting his girlfriend. Another issue is that even aside from the character of Pelle, the film pushes the suspension of disbelief too far. There are multiple moments when the goings-on in the commune should prompt the visitors to leave immediately, but apart from a few weak attempts by Dani to persuade the others to go, they repeatedly accept the most ridiculous of situations based upon the most tenuous of explanations. Indeed, in a lot of ways, they're no different from the horny idiots who get picked off one by one in so many cheap slasher films. Furthermore, it doesn't help that initially Josh is depicted as an expert on paganism, and is familiar with many aspects of the festival, but later on, the script conveniently forgets about this when necessary.
Thematically, things are also quite jumbled. Whilst the core theme of a toxic relationship is present to one degree or another throughout, and Aster actually has some interesting things to say about complicity in such relationships, a lot of other ideas are thrown into the mix without really going anywhere – death, renewal, paganism itself, the nature of grief (and given the strong opening, that Aster allows this theme to drop off is especially disappointing). Additionally, as already mentioned, there are few surprises here. Aster is obviously a big fan of the subgenre of folk horror, but he allows reverence to the tropes supersede any kind of narrative inventiveness, leading to predictability, and as insane as the last 20 minutes are, nothing really happens that surprised me. Also, as in _Hereditary_, the explanation for what's going on isn't anywhere near as interesting as the ambiguity preceding it, making explicit something which was so deeply unsettling when implicit.
That all said, however, I did enjoy _Midsommar_. Not as disturbing as _Herditary_, it finds Aster again working with dread rather than quintessential horror tropes. Aesthetically impressive, and built on a terrific central performance, it could be accused of style over substance or cited as an example of a filmmaker whose ambitions outweigh his abilities, but ultimately, Aster's mastery of tone sees him through. The script could use some work, no doubt, but the ominous sense of dread is palpable throughout and is brilliantly handled, with the most mundane of objects imbued with haunting portentousness. The _dénouement_ is more rote than I expected, and although Aster tries to tackle too many issues, his depiction of the death throes of a toxic relationship is as penetrating and emotionally honest as any ostensible relationship drama. Unnerving and audacious, _Midsommar_ is, ultimately, an exceptionally confident piece of filmmaking, if not necessarily an exceptional piece of filmmaking.

Although arthouse horror movies really aren’t my thing for the most part, ‘Midsommar’ falls into a strange middle ground where I wasn’t bored but I wasn’t invested either. I feel no need to “finding the mean“ to read theories online, because I simply don’t care. The only saving grace is the visuals, which are breathtaking and wildly creative at times, but it’s not a trip I want to take again.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-midsommar-ari-aster-brings-the-gore-but-lacks-the-emotion
8/08/2019
3 stars

Although it has an elegant way of building suspense and one absolutely stunning opening scene, I think Midsommar fails for me in the execution of its sequences. The whole movie is slowly building up the dread of the pagan cult, but fails to deliver when it comes to showcasing the brutality toward the end, and after two hours of build up it's baffling how minute the payoff is. The performances are fantastic, though! And I love watching Swedish people scream.

Got this movie for free with my reward points. So never heard of this movie or even knew what it was about. It is actually a pretty good movie. It's really a nobody who is just tired of life beating him down. Just like me lol. All of sudden he just snaps and starts making people pay.