**It's a family time!**
I'm not a fan of this film, except I always loved Minions, particularly their solo film before this one. That prequel was awesome, so much fun. But it's hard to believe, this franchise has already reached three films/parts. Yeah, the Minions helped to find its place among the animation fans, but in this film they were kind of ignored. That's the truth. They had less screenspace which directly affected the film and those who love them.
Gru is set to meet his twin brother, Dru, who is dreaming to be like his father, a supervillain. But now changed Gru is not interested to help his brother. Instead, he uses him to accomplish on what he had failed recently. Okayish story, but it had some good fun. It's almost given a hint about the possible plot for the next sequel. I think kids would enjoy it without expecting much. So a one time watchable film.
_6/10_

Nothing will beat the first film. The originality fades with most sequels. Unfortunately this is more the rule rather than the exception. For the same reason, I hope they don't bother to create another "Rango". That was another fun and brilliant animation in my opinion. Kids will like it and by all means don't avoid it. Just don't have high expectations.

Not convinced this is a greatly made movie, but it sure does pack a punch!
'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' makes for good viewing for the majority, though that ending really is quite something - startling in fact, and that's even with me sensing it. The aforementioned is because, as well as the way the film builds in general, I'm pretty certain I watched this at high school; just not sure if it was snippets or the whole thing, the fence scenes are the only ones I vaguely recall seeing.
The low acting level of the youngsters did take me out a bit, no dislike to Asa Butterfield and Jack Scanlon, obviously, but they aren't the best. Though they aren't helped by the dialogue for them, which doesn't feel natural at all. It's written in a way that is simply to tell the viewer about what's happening. The adult actors are great, though. Vera Farmiga stands out, though David Thewlis, Rupert Friend and David Hayman merit a mention too.
All in all, it's a good film - and one that is distressingly unforgettable thanks to that one moment.

Decent movie. Has some pretty crazy possessions going on. The movie does tend to drag on a lot though. Hard to keep interested till the end.

There are hell things on earth and only Keanu Reeves to give them a good kicking! This is a hugely imaginative vision of a movie, not a direct copy of the comic it was spawned from but still a fantastic creation. This movie is one of a kind and well worth your time.

With the announcement that a Constantine sequel was in development, decided to give this another watch (probably last time was when it was released on DVD). While I'm really not that big into the supernatural horror genre and have only basic knowledge of the Hellblazer comic, I still found this one mildly entertaining and for 2004/05, the effects weren't too bad, with the hell sequences looking pretty dang interesting, hopefully gets more exploration in the sequel. And Reeves was decent in the lead. **3.0/5**

Somehow I feel this movie in a way focuses more than others on feet. I know it sounds strange and I might be alone in my perception but hey this might be useful information for someone.

**Based on real events, the film does full justice to what happened, despite not being a particularly memorable film for any of those involved.**
On January 15, 2009, the American people (and the entire world) saw with amazement and great joy the way in which a commercial airliner, after hitting a flock of birds and losing its two engines, managed to cheat death and land safely in the waters of the Hudson River in New York. The pilot, Chelsey Sullenberger, was widely credited for the aerial feat, having managed to save everyone on the plane and limit the incident to material damage. In fact, the veteran pilot largely ignored the instructions from the Tower, trusted his instincts and experience, and made the right decision.
No wonder, then, that it all ended up on film. Clint Eastwood has done better and more notable works in his directing career, but he's in good shape here, and the film fully honors what happened that day. However, the film lacks tension and drama, and most of the action takes place after the accident, throughout the long investigation in which the authorities tried to verify what happened, and to what extent could they blame the pilots of that plane.
Tom Hanks is one of those actors that we can call a “safe bet”. Whatever film he decides to make, it's almost guaranteed that the actor will put in his best effort and do his job to the best of his ability. And this film was no exception, with a good performance, in which Hanks managed to capture very well the voice, gestures and mannerisms of the real person he imitated, and who he knew to be able to do so. Aaron Eckhart also rose to the challenge, giving his character a touch of unpretentious humor that suits him well, as well as giving Hanks a very welcome backing. Unfortunately, on the part of the cast, there is nothing else good to point out. Laura Linney did everything she could with her character, but she doesn't have any material or relevance to help her. The evaluators who analyze what happened, however, are the film's most ungrateful and poorly written characters because, for increased dramatic effects, they are virtually demonized.
Technically, the film is pretty decent. There are glaring flaws of anachronism in between, that the most attentive eye can easily find, such as the deciduous trees that are green despite the fact that the film takes place in the middle of winter, and also there is not a single person on that crashed plane that we can see the breath of (something common on colder days, when we see our breath as a vapor). The plane scenes were very well done and the CGI used was really good. The cinematography is good, the film makes good use of the scenic beauty of New York and its Hudson River, and the filming locations were chosen and used in the best way possible. The soundtrack is essentially banal and unremarkable.

Top class, as expected.
'Sully' is great. Tom Hanks absolutely nails it as the titular character, he is undoubtedly the perfect cast for the role. An outstanding actor, as we all know. The plot is told in a way that I personally enjoyed, I liked seeing the different snippets of time.
Though no-one is on the same level as Hanks in this, there are a few other good performers. Aaron Eckhart (Jeff) does well, while there are less important roles for people like Anna Gunn (Elizabeth) and Michael Rapaport (Pete). I have no issues with the casting, that's for sure.
It's a crazy true story, mad that it happened way back in 2009 - feels more recent, strangely. I assume it uses the usual creative license that practically every film does, which I'm fine with. It delivers as a quality film, which is all I truly care about.

**When a real human bravery wasn't appreciated till the computers confirmed it.**
Another excellent biographical drama for Tom Hanks in the title role. He has transformed from captain Phillips to captain Sully. Another great addition to Clint Eastwood's filmography as well, he never disappoints us. This film was based on the real event of the January 15, 2009. When a US passenger plane got hit by birds just after the take off, losing both the engines, landed on the New York's Hudson river. So the film reveals the heroic event, as well as followed by the investigation of the crash landing.
As it is a Hollywood film what should I expect, another American bravery? Yep, but still a good film, very engaging plot. It's not all about the plane event, because I thought one of the film poster is a spoiler. So the film covers more story, about the drama surrounding the main event. Especially saving the lives, that inspires even for the outside Americans. The entire narration is about two-three day affair, but most of the film was about the crash landing. From the actors to the visuals, all were top class. One of the best biopic that's not based on one's whole life, but one heroic attempt which will be remembered him and this film for forever.
_8/10_

Filmmaker Clint Eastwood is certainly no stranger to overseeing exploratory biopics and his latest effort in **Sully** definitely supports his cinematic vision for spotlighting an unknown everyday aviation professional into an overnight national hero. Thus, airline pilot Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger became an inspirational savior courtesy of the potentially fateful day on January 15, 2009 when US Airways Flight 1749 morphed into the celebrated newsworthy incident dubbed "Miracle on the Hudson"
In **Sully** Eastwood and screenwriter Todd Kormarinski presents Captain Sullenberger as an understated hero in the unconventional sense. Indeed, Sullenberger had his personal demons and doubts about that critical day years ago when his quick decision to land the doomed aircraft in the icy waters of the Hudson River in the aftermath of a freakish occurrence when a flock of birds managed to disable the engine's operation shortly after takeover from LaGuardia Airport. The label of "hero" may have been somewhat flattering for the veteran pilot in light of his accomplishment in saving the lives of his 155 passengers and crew courtesy of a risky landing that could have been their hellish watery graves. However, the burdensome christening of "hero" weighed heavily on Sullenberger especially when insulting suspicions arose questioning the pilot's actions. Sure, Sullenberger basked in instant adulation but his private torment was almost as haunting as the near tragedy he prevented when ensuring the airborne safety of those jeopardized on board.
The challenging task in **Sully** was to create the tension and psychological strife behind an infamous 6-minute flight headed for disaster. Thankfully, Eastwood's steady direction and Komarnicki's adventurous script captures the tense and anxiety-driven moments that fuels **Sully's** soulful foundation. More important, two-time Oscar winner Tom Hanks diligently fits the bill as the beleaguered Captain Sullenberger whose personalized battles with heroism caused pressured ambivalence and self-inflicted guilt. It has been an awful long time since Hanks was tapped for an Oscar nomination so let's hope that his solid work in **Sully** warrants Academy Award consideration.
Some may be rather cynical about Eastwood's daring narrative as the self-explanatory story has been interpreted in so many news accounts, documentaries, the personal accounts from the Flight 1749 survivors and to a certain extent Captain Sullenberger himself. Still, **Sully** sets out to examine a conflicted and confused man second guessing his aviation skills and instincts as an individual thrust into the national spotlight with a combination of hope and hesitation.
Not only had the quick-thinking Sully and co-pilot Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart in a welcomed, absorbing supporting role) dodged a major catastrophe when accidentally flying into the cluttered Canadian geese that caused the ice-cold water landing in the Hudson but they were actually scrutinized by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) regarding Sully's decision not to return the malfunctioning plane to LaGuardia Airport or toward a nearby airport therefore opting to gamble using the Hudson River as the immediate surface available to land.
Naturally, the sudden media attention anointing the heralded pilot as a heroic soul coupled with the mixed reception of the buzz-killers in the NTSB speculating that foul play may have been involved for the piloting tandem of Flight 1549 understandably heightened the self-doubts and generated Sully's Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. In the meantime, Sullenberger's wife Lorrie (Academy Award nominee Laura Linney) as well as other close family and associates are constantly being hounded by intrusive reporters in their attempt to get an exclusive piece of the cherished "man of the moment" in Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger.
Granted that **Sully** will not go down as one of the flashiest biopics to cross our paths on the big screen in recent years. But Eastwood does deserve credit for showcasing the somber and beleaguered Sullenberger as a low-key, loyal isolationist dealing with the newfound fame and appreciation he is awkwardly at odds with facing as the Hudson River landing/rescue still chomps at his tainted psyche. Hanks's portrayal of the extremely likable but reluctant hero with lingering reservations is a stark contrast to contemporary cinematic heroes that routinely defeat monsters and aliens, parade around as slick and resilient super spies, wear superhero masks and capes, solemnly walk the mean streets with ready-made badges and firearms or are war-torn warriors from ancient historical times. Quite frankly, Chesley "Sully" Sullemberger is a flawed yet conscientious man urged to question his own courageousness and professional conviction.
Eckhart's Stiles is effectively drawn as Sully's ardent supporter whose disbelief is tested when the NTSB has the nervy gumption to place his capable colleague under the dubious microscope after his amazing endeavor in protecting the sacred lives all on board the panicky plane destined for its doomsday fate. Conveniently, Eastwood inserts Anna Gunn (from TV's "Breaking Bad") as one of the perceived NTSB interrogating "baddies" trying to pin the wrap on Sully's numb shoulders in reference to his troubling flight methods. Linney, always the talented and involving actress, is merely reduced to displaying the commonplace hysterics of Sully's concerned spouse.
Perhaps **Sully** is not the most thoroughly in-depth biopic one would have imagined because we are working with the perplexing man whose heroic actions made us aware of this seasoned phenomenal flyboy glorified in our living rooms nearly two decades ago. There is not much to ponder about Eastwood's fictitious Sullenberger from his past that gives insight to his current-day characterization as the media-praised hero-in-healing. In all fairness, Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger's claim to fame was his hasty option to spare the endangered existences of his passengers and crew so Eastwood allows his problematic protagonist's questionable heroics to paint the picture as the incredible individual whose January 2009 resourcefulness spoke more truthfully than any miscellaneous flashbacks could do to justify Sully's angst-ridden tendencies.
Overall, **Sully** establishes a different kind of turbulence for an introspective yet gently intense wounded wonder tip toeing on the borderline of deserved and deceptive worship.
**Sully** (2016)
Warner Bros.
1 hr. 36 mins.
Starring: Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, Laura Linney, Jeffrey Nordling, Jamey Sheridan, Michael Rappaport, Anna Gunn, Valarie Mahaffey
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: Drama/Biopic
Critic's rating: *** stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) **Frank Ochieng** 2016

Segera bergabung dengan Lapakqq dapatkan hadiah dan bonus menarik.
Nikmati bagaimana rasanya menjadi bandar yang sesungguhnya.
Jangan sampai ketinggalan ya.
Lapakqq Menyediakan Promo Menarik :
• Bonus Referral 10%+10%
• Bonus TurnOver 0.5%
Dengan Proses DEPO & WD cepat.
Pelayanan yang selalu mengutamakan anda, di jamin tidak bosen dan nyaman dengan apa yang di berikan.
JADI ??Tunggu apa Lagi. Kunjungi www.lapakqq.com sekarang.
kami menyediakan website untuk anda, 6 permainan dalam 1 web.
? Poker Online
? DominoQQ
? BandarQ
? AduQ
? Capsa Susun
? Bandar Poker
KAMI MELAYANI 24JAM UNTUK ANDA!

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
Don't get me wrong, this is probably a stranger than good watch, but from concept to story to characters, it has a lot of good to it. Some of the choices are a bit odd, but they do create their own problem-solution story arcs that make it feel like this was a comic book that was consolidated into a movie.
While Depp's typical weirdness is abundant, each character has their own weirdness about them, and the otherworldly atmosphere of the movie is what makes it.
Eva Green does steals the show whenever she makes an appearance, and her character is a force of power, and it shows.
There is something very intriguing about immortal characters locked in battle, and that's what really draws me back to this movie.

I'm sorry but I am incapable of buying 50-year-old Johnny Depp as the immortal, youthful, irresistible heir to his father's New World empire. Maybe in a better movie, I would have been too distracted to be bothered by it, but this is Tim Burton's 2012 reboot of _Dark Shadows_, so that was not the case.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

***I don’t get all the hate***
On coastal Maine, a Vampire named Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp) is released in 1972 after almost 200 years in captivity and reacquaints himself with his family’s chateau & the nearby fishing village. Michelle Pfeiffer plays the Collins matriarch, Helena Bonham Carter the in-house shrink, Eva Green a conniving witch, Bella Heathcote the reincarnation of Barnabas’ long-lost love and Chloë Grace Moretz a 15 year-old punk.
Directed by Tim Burton, “Dark Shadows” (2012) isn’t far removed in tone from his “Sleepy Hollow” (1999), which also featured Depp as the protagonist, although I suppose “Shadows” throws in a little more humor. I’ve never seen the TV soap opera Dark Shadows or the subsequent two movies, so I can’t compare this movie to them. All I know is that I liked this rendition quite a bit, just as I liked the inexplicably reviled “The Lone Ranger” (2013).
The October/November ambiance (i.e. Halloween-season) is to die for and Depp as Barnabas Collins maintains your interest throughout. He’s obviously a fish-out-of-water in 1972, but acclimates pretty quickly. Eva Green is perfect as the ee-vil witch and Carter is enjoyable as usual. I don’t get the hubbub over Moretz, but she’s a’right (and holds a surprise for the last act). Alice Cooper is featured in a glorified cameo. I should add that the opening credits sequence with “Nights in White Satin” is cinema at its finest.
The movie runs 1 hour, 53 minutes and was shot in England (Devon, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Cornwall & Farnham) and Scotland (Mull, Argyll and Bute) with exteriors of the chateau shot at Trafalgar Castle School, Whitby, Ontario, Canada.
GRADE: B

I generally like Tim Burton as well as Johnny Depp. This movie was no exception. It is a dark (of course with Tim Burton) comedy with some hint of action/thriller in it. I would not really characterize it as a horror movie even though there are a vampire as well as a witch and a werewolf in it. Of course there is the romance stuff but I personally feel that is really more of a background or justification to the plot than anything else.
This is not a magnificent movie but it’s a good movie. I have never seen the original series so I am not biased by that. It seems that many people that considers this to be a bad movie refers to the original show. I have read several of the critical reviews and I do not agree with most of them.
I found this movie to be a nice, moderately paced, comedy in a vampire/gothic setting. The mood and the wackiness were fairly typical for a Tim Burton production. Johnny Depp was pretty much as can be expected which is a good thing if you like Johnny Depp.
The return of Barnabas to his, now rather dysfunctional, family is rather funny. The ease with how Barnabas was duped and trapped again in the second half of the film was a bit annoying but then, he had been asleep for a few centuries.
The entire family quite enjoyed this movie.

Let's leave it all at the door here. I loved Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, and Batman. Hated Batman Returns, Alice in Wonderland, and Willy Wonka. Could care less about Nightmare before Christmas and Sweeney Todd. Okay, so I'm not a Tim Burton hater. I'm not a huge Tim Burton fan. I think in this situation, I'm as close as you get to the average movie goer. No agenda, no attachments. That being said, this film is terrible. Burton spent so much effort and time worrying about making this film Gothic and off pace, stuffing his favorite actors into the film even though half of their parts were pointless, he forgot he was making a film. It's a simple and fun idea but it feels like ego and "showiness" kept them from making the plot even make sense. We get it Tim! You are weird! Don't ruin a good performance by Depp and a fun idea for a film because you have to live up to your own Gothic standards. Grow up. So much talent is wasted on these films having the same look, cast, and feel to them. Take that talent and make something fresh! Stretch yourself just a tad out of that Hot Topic comfort zone will ya? This movie was long, boring, and ruined. All of the funny scenes were in the trailer. By the way.... wasn't this supposed to be the 70's? Other than a shot or two of trees and a hippie van it was just like the set of Sweeney Todd. The whole film felt like London in the 40's. That's bad film making whether your name is Tim Burton or not.

A harmless feel-good romantic comedy with Adam Sandler on usual form as a bit of a commitment-phobe. That is, until he meets "Lucy" (Drew Barrymore") and he really thinks he has found true love. The snag is that she has some pretty serious short-term memory issues and so each time they meet, he has a sort of first date groundhog day to get through. This is a bit of a one joke movie, though some of the daily variations inject a little extra to the, sometimes laboured, prevailing theme. Decent enough performances from the leads - with a strong supporting cast (including Dan Ackroyd, Sean Astin & Rob Schneider) - make this a watchable, if forgettable rom-com.

**Great laughs, ridiculously fun characters, and a sweet story make 50 First Dates a fantastic date night movie.**
Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore bring their zany chemistry back together again to make my favorite Adam Sandler movie and one of the most entertaining RomComs a couple could enjoy. 50 First Dates delights with its ridiculous and heartwarming characters. Rob Schneider and Sean Astin’s characters are by far the most outrageous and most fun parts of the film. The far-fetched premise of 50 First Dates perfectly lends itself to some hilarious moments and, ultimately, an endearing story of love overcoming even the most challenging of obstacles. 50 First Dates perfects the Adam Sandler formula with extremely satisfying and humorous results.

This features a strong and characterful performance from Elliot Page in the title role. She is a young girl who somehow manages to convince her rather naive and drippy boyfriend "Bleeker" (Michael Cara) to have sex. When she becomes pregnant, she decides against an abortion and so offers the baby up for adoption to "Mark" (Jason Bateman) and his rather obsessive wife "Vanessa" (Jennifer Garner). The remainder of the gently entertaining film follows this young woman as she gradually deals with her pregnancy, her relationship with her parents and starts to bond with "Mark". It's this latter storyline that begins to illustrate to her not just the cracks in that marriage, but also her own feelings about herself, her unborn child and it's father. The film offers a witty and sometimes quite emotionally effective observation of how she evolves as a person and though the denouement itself is rather flat, it's still quite a fun outing for all concerned. Allison Janney and JK Simmons work well together as her parents who inject a certain amusing realism to the fact that their daughter is expecting a baby, not doing heroine! The dialogue is well written with an enjoying degree of sarcasm and plausibility to it that quite frequently raises a smile.

Juno is a girl, a totally cool girl who don't take shit from anyone and do whatever she likes. She is not like disrepectful or anything, she just knows who she is and what she likes, even though she thinks that she haven't figured it out yet. She totally has.
Juno gets pregnant with Bleeker. She thinks about getting an abortion, as it will be the responsible thing to do, but can't get herself to do it (I mean, the kid already has fingernails!), instead she finds a cool couple to adopt the child (Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman).
Juno is a movie about being a kid and growing up, about taking responsibility for your life and doing the right thing, even though it's damn hard. I mean, imagine being a pregnant teen on your school... you think people would talk about you? Well, they do... a lot. Also, imagine how your parents would react and how you would react to giving it up, whether its abortion or adoption.
Anyways, Juno is cool and takes everything as it comes. She'll figure it out eventually, we know this the minute we see her. Nothing will break Juno.
Ellen Page is amazing as Juno, and the rest of the cast is so carefully casted that it's not even funny. Everyone understands their part and while the dialogue is a little movie-ish all the way through, it is also terrible believeable. These people speak this way because they... know themselves and don't give a damn what anyone else thinks.
_Last words... if you haven't yet, go watch this movie. You don't even need to be a teenager to get it... this is a movie for everyone, boy or girl, man or woman, age 12 or 68. Don't miss out on Juno, she is worth every minute._

A good old fashioned end-to-end action movie. The script is irrelevant, it's about loads of pyrotechnics, special effects and not a lot else. Who cares? Idris Elba is clearly in his element as the baddie against the F&F equivalent of dumb and dumber - Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham - who are also having fun and it is contagious. It is way, way, too long, but there is certainly some charisma on the screen and where else will you still see a bow and arrow and an axe in a fight these days?

Wow! That was just fucking awesome!
Don't know why there's so many haters though. Hobbs and Shaw was the best action movie in 2019.
Yeah, it was cheesy. Very cheesy. But in an awesome way.

Yeah, sure, fuck it, why not, hey? I mean the _Fast & Furious_ franchise was already dipping into some sci-fi elements, why not just whole-hog dive into it for your spinoff? Dumb as dogshit, but might genuinely be the best thing _Fast & Furious_ has ever produced. Has cars in it, but stops bothering to try and pretend racing them is actually important to the story.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

I generally really enjoy the Fast and Furious movies and was looking forward to this spin-off, especially being directed by David Leitch, but nothing in this stood out action/stunts-wise and the chemistry between Johnson/Statham/Kirby was lackluster, including the quasi-budding romance with Johnson and Kirby. A lot of this film felt forced and going in the science fiction realm just felt wrong. Sure, it's got the dumb elements F&F is known for, but very little of this was fun. **2.75/5**

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
Here’s the thing about the Fast & Furious franchise: it can be dumb fun. Every movie has the right to be entertaining even if it completely disregards physics and logic… As long as it establishes its tone from the start. You can’t make an action film where the main characters survive basically everything they shouldn’t and take everything seriously. It’s not that you can’t have that mix of tones (Furious 7 did it brilliantly), but that’s reserved for some of the best movies of the year since it’s not easy (at all) to balance so many different things. Hobbs & Shaw sets its tone in the first 10 minutes, and everyone knows what they’re getting themselves into. However, it didn’t quite work for me this time…
The Fast & Furious saga is an undeniable success, even more in my country where it constantly breaks box-office records. It possesses everything a popcorn blockbuster should have: tons of action (car chases, explosions, fights, shootouts), easy-to-follow plot, and simple character development. There’s no problem in leaving your brain at the entrance of the theater for a couple of hours and just have fun. Of course, Hobbs & Shaw is ridiculous. It’s completely absurd, it has no sense of logic, and it’s unbelievable how many physics-defying sequences occur. But that’s exactly what they establish in those first few minutes, so people just need to sit comfortably and eat that whole bag of popcorn while watching the most ludicrous action on-screen.
So, if the tone is well-balanced, why didn’t I enjoy it as much as the rest? People seem to be having tremendous fun (even critics who usually demolish this type of films are liking it), so I guess I’m in the minority here, but I just found the action pretty underwhelming, and the comedy was way off for me. Granted, there are huge set pieces, and there are a couple of great action scenes, especially a motorbike-car chase between Brixton, Hobbs, and Shaw. True, there are a couple of laughs that I couldn’t contain due to how amazing Statham and Johnson’s chemistry is. Nevertheless, overall, I just don’t think it’s enough.
First of all, my main issue with the story: Brixton. Idris Elba is incredible as always, and I really want him to be the next James Bond. However, his character is so poorly written and so horribly explored that I wonder why they made him an enhanced machine with superpowers. Literally, there’s no difference between him and the other two main characters, which ultimately destroys the “superhero” vibe Elba should have. That’s the problem with having such an absurd movie: if your “heroes” are undefeatable due to their enormous plot armor, how is your “superpowered villain” different than them? If an explosion goes off with the three of them close, why do Hobbs and Shaw survive in the same way Brixton does? How does a punch from a “black Superman” has the same impact as a punch from the other two?
Then, the comedy. It’s not like I disliked Statham and Johnson bantering for five straight minutes in three different scenes. It’s just too long, and not all of the jokes land. The film itself is way too long, just over two hours. If I didn’t know about the whole Samoa sequence from occasionally seeing it on a TV spot, I would have believed the movie was about to end when it started its third act. It feels like it’s going to end, but then there’s a whole other massive action set piece to show off. For the first time in a long, long time, I almost fell asleep during the transition from the second-to-last to the last action moment. The action is also very disappointing having in mind David Leitch is directing. Too many quick cuts, and way too choppy.
Finally, there’s an attempt at the start of a romance that I won’t spoil, but … It’s not like it’s forced because it actually isn’t. It follows a logical path, characters don’t say stupid stuff to each other, and it was surprisingly being a good way of stopping to breathe and relax away from all the action. However, as the film reaches its conclusion, they ditch it altogether and never address it anymore. There’s even a line similar to “I’ll let you have a kiss tomorrow if we’re still alive”, but they never go there again. It’s like it never happened… Why? The only thing that was truly being logical and emotionally compelling is completely ignored by the end. That’s disappointing.
I don’t want to be too harsh on the movie because I do understand how entertaining and fun it might be. I’m sure audiences will love it, and fans of the franchise will love it even more. The chemistry of the cast is palpable, and everyone is terrific. Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham are awesome as the action superstars, and they’re definitely the main source of entertainment. Vanessa Kirby is also pretty great, and I have to commend the film for keeping two spectacular cameos under wraps. You won’t believe who’s in this movie as well. There are still a couple of cool action sequences, and I did laugh more than a couple of times, so I guess it isn’t as bad as this review might transmit.
I know I’m in the minority, so I recommend all of you to go watch it and judge it for yourselves. If you enjoy absurdity, ridiculousness, and over-the-top action, as well as cheesy comedy, Hobbs & Shaw might be perfect for you. It didn’t really work for me, though. The comedy was not as good as I expected, the action is not that captivating, and Brixton is such a horribly written and unexplored character, that I kept feeling frustrated every time an action sequence ended. Go for the huge set pieces and the dumb fun, stay for the amazing cast’s chemistry.
PS: if you haven’t watched Game Of Thrones by now, heavy spoilers in this film. You’ve been warned.
Rating: C

By this point in the franchise, ‘Fast & Furious’ fans will know exactly what to expect from ‘Hobbs and Shaw’, and there’s just enough here that's fresh enough to warrant taking another ride with the series.
- Ashley Teresa
Read Ashley's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-fast-and-furious-hobbs-and-shaw-very-furious-not-so-fast

First time seeing this since probably 2003 in theaters and it's absolutely heartfelt and charming, probably one of Tim Burton's best films, or at least one of my personal favorites of his. Great performances all around but especially Ewan McGregor and Albert Finney. Really well done. **4.5/5**

You know a franchise has run out of ideas when it sends its characters to space. "As long as we obey the laws of physics, then we'll be fine," Tej Parker (Ludacris) tells Roman Pearce (Tyrese Gibson) as the two prepare to literally drive a car offworld — an odd statement, considering it might be the first time in nine movies that they even acknowledge physics and the laws that govern it.
F9 is no exception. Right off the bat, Roman finds himself in a predicament that even Wile E. would find preposterous. Following a miraculous escape, Roman begins to suspect what Cipher (Charlize Theron) seems to already know; that they are all characters in an action movie. Sadly, the film doesn't pursue this direction which would be far more interesting than the Long Lost Brother tale it settles for.
It turns out that Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) has a brother, Jakob (John Cena). Like the laws of physics, Dom had never let on that this brother ever even existed. Thus, we get a series of expository flashbacks to provide some background for this new character; you know, so that it doesn’t appear as if they just pulled him out of fucking nowehere.
These trips down amnesia lane are what truly sinks the movie. F9 uses the format popularized by The Godfather Part II, in which Al Pacino plays Michael Corleone in the 'present' and Robert De Niro plays Vito Corleone in extended flashbacks.
Now, Diesel and Cena are no Pacino or De Niro, but they are two unique individuals endowed with clearly defined personalities and who happen to ooze charisma and self-confidence. In comparison, the actors who play their younger versions are such non-entities that they almost make a good case for digital de-aging (almost). As a result of this, F9 loses all the momentum it has gathered in the contemporary scenes every time it looks back.
Moreover, Cena is too obviously a Red Herring; there's a reason he played a 'heroic' character in WWE for roughly 15 years, and it's because he couldn't be a convincing villain even if his life depended on it.
Meanwhile, skilled performers like Kurt Russell, Shea Whigham, Michael Rooker, and Helen Mirror are wasted in peripheral roles (not to mention Theron, who spends most of her screen time literally locked inside a transparent box, leaving us to wonder what she does when she has to go to the bathroom), the filmmakers seemingly operating under the impression that they must perforce make room for each and every character who has ever made an appearance at some point in the series.
Apart from those already mentioned, we briefly see Lucas Black, Don Omar, Bow Wow, Jason Tobin, Gal Gadot, and Jason Statham in a cameo during the closing credits (unseen by me because once the credits roll, I’m outta there). About the only exception is of course Paul Walker (but not, as one might have reasonably expected, the one who had supposedly died in an explosion in a previous installment), whose character, from what we hear, has been reduced to babysitting Dom's son and his own. Is that the true Fate of the Furious?

Well they did sub-title this a "saga", but I wasn't quite expecting something this poor. Things didn't auger well when the cinema screen broke down and we were turfed out after thirty minutes. Next week, back for part two - complete with "an opportunity to refresh our memories" as the cinema lad put it... Sadly, though, the first half hour provides us with easily the most entertaining elements of this otherwise weak story bereft of just about everything bar some super stunts/visual effects and Charlize Theron locked up in a plastic cage. There is some effort made to create some characters, and Vin Diesel does bring a certain degree of charisma to the screen, but after an initial flurry of decent motor sport action, we drop from a great height into a family revenge/melodrama that has only one, entirely predictable, conclusion. It is a piece of harmless escapism that serves to divert us from reality for an extremely overlong 2 hrs and 20 minutes but this franchise really misses Paul Walker and although I'm sure nobody will listen, this is not much of a testament to his memory and ought to be the last unless someone is going to revamp the concept thoroughly and invest in solid stories and characters to compliment the endless, and increasingly sterile, visuals. I want one of those planes, though....