BlacKkKlansman is an incredible bio-flick that shows the parallels between the 1970s and todays political landscape. The performances by Washington and Driver were absolutely brilliant. With the addition to all the Klansman performances, they really sell the world and the treatment towards minorities in a very serious but brutal way which I really appreciated. For a biographical piece, it really keeps you engaged and interested in the bigger message of what they are trying to deliver. I think this is an incredibly important film that everyone should watch in their life.
**Verdict:** _Masterpiece_

**_Polemical, didactic, confrontational, angry, trenchant - a state-of-the-nation address_**
> _We made a contemporary-period film, and it's about what's happening in the world today. Don't make the mistake that this stuff is just happening in the United States; it's worldwide._
> [...]
> _One of the things I know will happen is that when this guy in the White House, when he's gone, and historians look back on him, they're going to look at what he said, his comments about Charlottesville, where he cannot make the distinction between love and hate. He co-signed the Klan, he co-signed t__he alt-right and he co-signed neo-Nazis and I think that gave those terrorist groups, homegrown American terrorist groups, a green light._
- Spike Lee; "_BlacKkKlansman_'s Spike Lee On Trump's Legacy, Harry Belafonte & 2020 Election - Awardsline Screening Series"; _Deadline_ (January 10, 2019)
_BlacKkKlansman_ is a film with a whole hell of a lot on its mind. It opens with one of the most (in)famous scenes from Victor Fleming's _Gone with the Wind_ (1939), before pivoting to a fictional precursor of Alex Jones lecturing the audience on the dangers of the "negroid", and later takes in everything from Kwame Ture and the All-African People's Revolutionary Party to David Duke and his political aspirations, before lambasting D.W. Griffith's _The Birth of a Nation_ (1915), criticising the tropes of classic Blaxploitation films such as Gordon Parks's _Shaft_ (1971), Gordon Parks Jr.'s _Super Fly_ (1972), and Jack Hill's _Coffy_ (1973), going into agonising detail regarding the 1916 lynching of Jesse Washington, sardonically criticising police bureaucracy, and concluding with a montage of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, including raw footage of James Alex Fields, Jr. ploughing a car into a crowd of counter-protestors, resulting in the death of Heather Heyer, intercut with Duke championing Donald Trump's presidency, and Trump's own reluctance to condemn the Neo Nazi/white supremacist component of the rally. The film then ends with an evocatively worded tribute to Heyer, before fading to an upside-down black and white American flag (which is not, as is often stated, a political protest, but is actually a governmentally approved signal for "dire distress"). Yep; this is a film with a lot to say.
At its core, _BlacKkKlansman_ is about institutional racism in the United States. Ostensibly dealing with the 1970s manifestation of such, the film's real point is that in 2018, not only is such racism still a problem, it's now even more endemic, due to its pseudo-legitimacy in the wake of Trump's election, and the concomitant upsurge in hate crime across the country. The film holds a mirror up to the contemporary era by way of presenting an historical event which both underlines the inherent nonsensicality of white supremacist attitudes, whilst also pointing out just how dangerous idiots like this can be in a country where guns are so readily available, where being a member of an organised hate group is not illegal, and where the belief that "white is right" reaches to the upper echelons of power.
On the surface, the film plays out as you would expect from the trailer - it's a frequently hilarious look at the true story of how a black police officer infiltrated the Ku Klux Klan. In 1979, Ron Stallworth (John David Washington) became the first black officer in the Colorado Springs PD. Initially assigned to the records room, Stallworth talks his way into an undercover investigation run by Detectives Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver) and Jimmy Creek (Michael Buscemi), who have him attend a lecture being given by Kwame Ture (Corey Hawkins) with orders to report on the mood and attitudes of the crowd. Although taken with Ture's rhetoric, Stallworth nevertheless carries out his assignment, and is subsequently transferred to intelligence. Seeing an advert for KKK membership in the newspaper, Stallworth rings the number on a whim. Pretending to hate everyone who doesn't have "pure white Aryan blood running through their veins", Stallworth is invited to meet. He then hatches an insane plan to use Zimmerman as the in-person Stallworth, whilst Stallworth himself will continue the phone conversations. At the meet-and-greet, Zimmerman/Stallworth is introduced to the unstable Felix Kendrickson (a superb Jasper Pääkkönen), who is immediately suspicious of him. Nevertheless, he's approved for membership. However, unhappy with how long the paperwork is taking, Stallworth rings KKK headquarters, and is shocked to find himself on the phone with "Grand Wizard" David Duke (Topher Grace), who he impresses to such an extent that Duke promises to expedite his membership.
And with this completely barmy premise as the hook, co-writer/director Spike Lee (_Do the Right Thing_; _Malcolm X_) has made his best film since _25th Hour_ (2002), and his funniest since _Bamboozled_ (2000), possibly the funniest of his career. Of course, Lee is far from the first person to see humour in the idea of a black person joining a white supremacist organisation – perhaps the best known example is Dave Chappelle's character, Clayton Bigsby, a blind black man unaware of his ethnicity, who has become the leader of a local KKK sect. However, where the film is unique, and where it excels, is in how Lee uses history to offer viciously trenchant commentary on race relations in 2018.
His combative intent is signalled in the first scene, which is actually a scene from another film; _Gone with the Wind_, as Scarlett O'Hara (Vivian Leigh) looks for Dr. Meade (Harry Davenport) in the wake of the Battle of Atlanta in July 1864. A resounding victory for the Union, the battle bolstered confidence in Abraham Lincoln's leadership, and precipitated the Confederate States of America's surrender the following year. The scene depicts O'Hara picking her way through the thousands of wounded and dead Confederate States' soldiers as a crane shot pulls back to show the devastation, finally coming to rest on a tattered Confederate Navy Jack. The implication here, as elsewhere in the film, is clear – this is very much the world of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, the belief that prior to Reconstruction, the Antebellum South was an urbane and benign society, with the Confederacy heroically fighting the corrupt Union so as to preserve the inherently honourable southern way of life. Important in this skewered worldview is the contention that the practice of slavery was a benevolent institution, protecting the "coloureds" from their own worst predilections, and who, rather than being abused, were treated like members of the family who owned them. Lee first saw Gone with the Wind on a third-grade class trip, and of the experience, he states,
> _that film disturbed me. The imagery of Hattie McDaniel and Butterfly McQueen – "I don't know nuthin' 'bout birthin' no babies" – I mean, there was no discussion at all about the imagery._
Lee keeps up the confrontational tack in the film's second scene, as _BlacKkKlansman_ segues into the first of two key scenes to reference another important filmic text set during the Civil War; D.W. Griffith's 1915 masterpiece _The Birth of a Nation_. This scene depicts the fictional cultural anthropologist Dr. Kennebrew Beauregard (Alec Baldwin), who, in grainy black-and-white footage tries to alert the audience to the fact that the negorids are attempting to take over the country. Obviously inspired by maniacs like Alex Jones, Beauregard is about as irrational as they come, and his frustration as he continually flubs his lines superbly undercuts any claim he may have to seriousness. But what's especially well done is how Lee uses _Birth_ to mock this type of individual. As footage of the film plays behind Beauregard, his face is erased of its colour – he is literally rendered white enough to become part of the projected image, which, of course, depicts a narrative built around the inherently virtuous nature of being white. It's a powerful shot that clearly tells us, yes, this is a comedy, and yes, these people are ridiculous, but also alerting us to the fact that Lee is not playing around here; he's going to use every filmic tool in his arsenal to get his point across.
And what is that point? The cultural instability of the United States in 2018, with its entrenched institutional racism, an entire race of people once again being treated like second class citizens because of the amount of melanin in their skin, hateful rhetoric masquerading as national pride, the breakdown of the distinction between xenophobia and patriotism, and the transition of hate crimes from the fringes of society into the realm of social acceptability. The film suggests that organisational racism once existed half-way between the absurd and the dangerous, but in recent years, it has moved in the wrong direction. Even before we get to the chilling closing montage, Lee and his co-writers (Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz, and Kevin Willmott) have dropped a few subtle allusions to Trump's presidency. In one scene, Stallworth confidently asserts that it doesn't matter how much of a legitimate businessman Duke becomes, and no matter how much he hides his racism behind more patriotic rhetoric such as immigration and crime, the country would never elect a crass, hate-filled racist as president. In another scene, Duke explains he and the KKK are "_making America great again_." These two allusions would be enough to get the point across, but it would also mean that that point remains in the realm of comedy, and is therefore easily dismissed. The closing montage changes that, as it drops all pretence of humour in depicting what happened in Charlottesville, and Trump's asinine response ("_You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides_"). This is very much a state-of-the-nation address.
In relation to _Birth of a Nation_, of course, things are more complicated than they are in relation to _Gone with the Wind_. Yes, the film is horrifically racist, and yes, it was singlehandedly responsible for the 20th-century revival of the KKK, but it is also probably the most important film ever made, and literally wrote the book on screen grammar. Conceivably, _Gone with the Wind_ could be removed from the canon and no longer taught, but _Birth_ absolutely could not. It is a foundational text, an undeniable landmark film, completely independent of its politics. Lee saw it during his first year at NYU, stating,
> _they taught us all of the cinematic innovations Griffith had come up with, but they left out everything that had to do with the social impact of the film. That this film re-energized the Klan. The Klan was dormant, it was dead, and the film brought about a rebirth. Therefore, because of the rebirth of the Klan, it led to black people being lynched, strung up, castrated and murdered, but that was never discussed! I have no problem with Birth of a Nation being screened […] but let's put it in context, let's discuss it._
_Birth_ is based on Thomas F. Dixon, Jr.'s 1905 novel T_he Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan_ - the second book in his KKK trilogy (the first is _The Leopard's Spots: A Romance of the White Man's Burden - 1865-1900_ (1902), and the third is _The Traitor: A Story of the Fall of the Invisible Empire_ (1907). As these titles suggest, all three novels valorise the practises and institutions designed to oppress black people, whilst depicting emancipated slaves and Yankee carpetbaggers as the "real" villains behind the Civil War, positing that the plight of the freedmen during Reconstruction was a direct result of their liberation (i.e., they (and the south in general) would have been better off had they remained slaves). In Dixon's depiction of the lawless society of the south, created by the Union, where coloureds can walk around freely, southern whites have become the target of racial violence, with freedmen being particularly fond of raping white women. In the trilogy, the Klan are depicted as arising from this maelstrom, honourable and heroic men forced to reluctantly take the law into their own hands so as to stop the rampage. So influential was the film that the modern KKK practices of wearing white hoods and burning crosses come from it, not from the original 1865-1871 incarnation of the Klan.
As mentioned, Lee uses the film twice – in the Beauregard scene, and in a later scene where his use of it speaks to the formal complexity of his own work. One of the most important of Griffith's innovations was that of parallel editing (better known today as cross-cutting), something we all take for granted in everything from films to commercials to music videos. In a nutshell, parallel editing is when two separate actions from two separate locations are intercut to suggest they are happening simultaneously, often, but not always, to heighten tension. It's one of the most fundamental components of screen grammar, so much so we don't even think about it today – we just take it as given. However, Lee's genius in this scene is that he uses _Birth_ to mock the Klan by way of, you guessed it, parallel editing. As the KKK sit down to watch _Birth_, Lee intercuts their enjoyment of its absurdities with Jerome Turner (Harry Belafonte) telling the story of the barbaric lynching of Jesse Washington, which saw a crowd of over 10,000 people in Waco, Texas, cheering on as his testicles and fingers were cut off, after which he was slowly burned to death by being continually raised over a fire. Lee uses parallel editing here so as to have one scene comment on the other – he is literally using _Birth_'s own innovations against it and what it represents. _Birth_ may be politically abhorrent, but Lee is savvy enough to not only recognise its technological importance, but to co-opt that importance and use it for his own ends, showing us the stunned reaction to a vicious murder contrasted with a celebration of the conditions which led to that murder.
As all of this may suggest, yes, the film is preachy, but that's because Lee is preaching. He makes no apology for such. This is polemic filmmaking, and the move into heavy didacticism in the final montage is completely earned.
On a more formal level, Lee thematically employs many of the aesthetic devices for which he has become known – whether it's a pronounced dutch angle during Stallworth's phone conversations with the KKK to indicate just how surreal the whole thing is, disembodied heads fading into one another during a powerful Ture speech, or, of course, the double dolly shot, which he has used in most of his films to suggest disillusionment and/or the characters' inability to control their own actions as they are inexorably pushed forward, divested of the contextualisation of their environment.
All of this is not to say the film is perfect, however. For example, it relates the apocryphal story that when Woodrow Wilson saw _Birth_, he commented, "_it is like writing history with lightning_." Wilson never said this; the quote was most likely the invention of Thomas F. Dixon Jr., who was promoting the film at the time. Lee must know this, and it does his cause no good to perpetuate a lie. How he employs the double dolly also raises some interesting problems, suggesting, as it does, that orthodox black activism and underground black militancy must combine forces in the face of hate. The film also glosses over Stallworth's time in COINTELPRO, where he worked to sabotage radical black organisations, because this doesn't fit into the overarching theme the film is constructing. Making Zimmerman Jewish is also troubling (the real person he was based upon is known only as Chuck, and all we know about him is that he definitely wasn't Jewish). Is Zimmerman supposed to represent Republican voters who abhor the KKK as much as the political left do? Who knows, because beyond being Jewish, there's no further character development; he's more of a rhetorical device, a meme rather than a person with an inner life. Similarly, the fictional explosion towards the end of the story serves to distastefully simplify everything, once more making the KKK look foolish, something which is wholly unnecessary at this point in the film, whilst also positing Stallworth as a clichéd movie hero, something Lee has avoided up until this point.
These are relatively minor complaints, however. Look, Lee is far from my favourite filmmaker. I really disliked _Malcolm X_ (1992), for example, probably his most celebrated film, and he has justifiably been accused of racism himself on multiple occasions. None of that, however, changes the fact that this is an hilarious, powerful, insightful, and frightening piece of work.
Vital filmmaking from an angry filmmaker.
Also nice to see Clay Davis…sorry, Isaiah Whitlock, Jr. pop up in a throwaway part, but still get to deliver his catchphrase. Seriously, how many actors these days have a catchphrase? Sheeeeeeeeeeeettttttttttttttt.

The way _BlacKkKlansman_ ends, felt in terms of formula almost as if I was supposed to have just seen some unsubtle propaganda, which seemed a very unusual note to go out on. It did sort of make me step back a bit, but it absolutely did not temper my enjoyment of the movie. I was engaged from the word go, and everybody in it is **so good**.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Six years after "Ralph" and "Vanellope" put paid to the aspirations of the evil "Candy King", she's getting a bit tired and restless with their daily life in the arcade. He decides that he can use the internet to make her "Sugar Rush" game more exciting, but all they end up with is a broken steering wheel and a real struggle to get it repaired before the whole game is permanently unplugged! Off into the very fabric of the web they must travel where they encounter the "netizens" and "Yesss" - the ultimate in trend-setting. What i just didn't like here was the style of animation. It's very two-dimensional with some really basic background CGI effects to prop up an extremely dialogue heavy series of escapades that just reminded me of "Tron" with too many words. There are a couple of redeeming scenes that do shine a light on just how complex and intricate the functioning web actually is, but they are tangential to a weak story with two characters that look like happy meal toys. I didn't love the first one, bit it was way better than this derivative stuff.

Great watch, will watch again, and do recommend.
Even if you haven't seen the first one, you can watch this just fine.
As much as I like this movie, the best part is by far the cg animated Disney Princesses: what a good tease for new CG movies, which they should have been doing instead of the live action garbage.
Again, as much as I like this, it is a bit of a deviation from the first movie with a bit of a mixed antithetical message to it. While the first movie focused on Ralph and his quest dragging collateral damage in its wake to eventually bring the characters together in a spirit of inclusion, this movie scales up in a weird way, showing the internet as a place of connected inclusion and then "wrecking it". Even the main story line is about Ralph's mission to fix things so they can maintain a status quo and Vanellope's search for change and "the new". It's literally about how they shouldn't be together, or maybe that they're still together even if they aren't.
It just gets weird real fast, and while J.C. Reilly and Sarah Silverman do a great job with their roles, you've got to operate with some suspension of disbelief that they can do any of what they're doing or that it makes any sense. They also deviated with how Ralph "wrecks" things.
Once you get past some of the nit-picky stuff, they're on a well structured adventure filled with charm and wonderment with lots of interesting characters.
I honestly would be surprised if anyone actively disliked this.

Marginally exceeds the original, at least in my eyes.
The internet setting works way better than the video game world. Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoyed 'Wreck-It Ralph'. I just think this one feels much more relatable, the vast majority of viewers understand the internet as opposed to the smaller market for old arcade games. For that, it means you can do some much more with the premise. All the references are amusing, while the inclusion of the Disney world itself is pretty cool.
I do have a few critiques, of course. The run time is about 20 minutes too long, while the final act isn't as great as it could've been. Everything else, though, they get mostly spot on. It's very entertaining, the end credit scenes are terrific too.
John C. Reilly (Ralph) and Sarah Silverman (Vanellope) are again very good, Jane Lynch (Calhoun) and Jack McBrayer (Felix) are marginalised but I'd argue that's fine - there's not much more you could do with those two characters. Alan Tudyk returns too, albeit in a new role as KnowsMore. I'm not usually a fan of same actor/different character, but that newbie is fun. Taraji P. Henson (Yesss) and Gal Gadot (Shank) are two newcomers, Gadot's character is more memorable but both are up-to-scratch.
I really like this 'Ralph Breaks the Internet', it's a rare Disney animated sequel that has strong quality.

Gets right into the "Internet" part of _Ralph Breaks the Internet_ real early in the piece, and scarcely plods along ever-after. I was surprised that I enjoyed the first _Wreck-It Ralph_ movie, but I was expecting a step down in quality for this one, which I absolutely got. There's still some things to like, and even the core message is an important one we don't see much of, plus i'm sure this will work as a movie for kids, which to be fair is its target demographic, I'm just saying I don't think I'll ever come back to see Ralph break the Internet a second time around.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Rewatching Blood Diamond reminded me why it’s such a powerful and unforgettable film. It’s not just a movie—it’s an experience that grabs you by the heart and doesn’t let go. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers one of his best performances as Danny Archer. His character’s journey from selfish opportunist to someone who finds his humanity is so raw and real that it hit me on a deeper level this time around. Djimon Hounsou as Solomon Vandy was equally breathtaking; his portrayal of a father’s unshakable love and desperation to reunite with his son brought me to tears more than once.
The film’s depiction of conflict diamonds and the devastating impact they have on innocent lives is brutal, but it’s a story that needs to be told. It forces you to confront the harsh realities of greed and exploitation, while also shining a light on the strength and resilience of the human spirit. There’s a particular scene where Solomon finds himself face-to-face with his son, who has been taken and brainwashed—it’s heart-wrenching and stays with you long after the credits roll.
Edward Zwick’s direction is stunning. The action is gripping, the emotional beats are deeply moving, and the film’s message is clear without being preachy. The cinematography captures the beauty and tragedy of Africa in a way that feels both poetic and unflinchingly honest. The soundtrack, too, weaves perfectly into the story, adding to the intensity and emotion.
This movie is more than just entertainment—it’s a reminder of what people are willing to sacrifice for love, for family, and for what’s right. By the end, I was left emotionally drained but also inspired. Blood Diamond is a masterpiece, a film that hits every chord, and one I’ll always hold close to my heart.

I watched on Netflix and it was a very good film.
The film isn't all action and shows the living conditions there. Djimon Hounsou, Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly were very good in the film

By now, we are all maybe all a bit too familiar with "Scrat" chasing his acorn and with his expanding group of friends' adventures in the frozen north. I certainly found this story to be entertaining enough, but running short on ideas and somewhat repetitive. When cast adrift on an ice floe, and heading to warmer climes, our wooly mammoth, sloth and sabre-toothed tiger have to figure out a way to tap the northerly sea currents and using an iceberg, get themselves back to the chill where "Ellie" and newborn "Peaches" await them. Along the way, "Manny", "Sid" and "Diego" meet some pirates - think "Pirates of the Caribbean" meets "Jungle Book" led by the whip-wielding "Gutt" and that's what gives "Manny" the germ of a cunning plan. Pinch his ice-ship and sail home! Pirates aren't so forgiving and what ensues proves quite perilous for our wanderers. It's fine, this film - the characters do what they have always done with a script that is adequate, but little better, and a story that I thought ran out of puff by the half way mark. It's quite a far cry from the busy, characterful and entertaining first film ten years earlier and to be honest, it all looks just a bit fatigued. It's still a watchable effort, though, but just bit too wordy and I reckon that this franchise is now ready for bed.

These movies are just good all them. Haven't made or seen a bad one yet. They all make me laugh.

Toni Collette is great in this family drama with quite a few gruesome twists! She is "Annie" who is mourning the recent death of her over-bearing mother. Except, as we discover when she goes to one of those bereavement groups, we discover that they were estranged and hadn't spoken for ages. Shortly after the funeral, husband "Steve" (Gabriel Byrne) is made aware of some unsavoury developments and then an even greater tragedy ensues that brings to an end years of bubbling resentment between her and teenage son "Peter" (Alex Wolff). Still struggling to comes to terms with things and with her family teetering on the bring of collapse, she is approached by "Joan" (Ann Dowd) who has recently suffered a tragedy of her own and who offers a means to communicate with the other world. Of course, "Annie" is disdainful of this proposal but glasses move, candles blow out and soon she is trying to convince her own sceptical family that they can all chat to the dead! There's the odd bit of ceiling-crawling and a few visual effects to make us jump a little, but for the most part this is a compelling two-hander between Collette and an equally on-form Wolff and both convey well the accumulating fears faced by both as they try to come to terms with a scenario that is being fuelled by something no longer of this world - and one that poor old "Steve" is more and more at a loss to know how to cope with. The last fifteen minutes brings in a few hitherto unrevealed threads but rather than frustrate, they prove to be quite clever at knitting the story together. It's a slow burn but builds well as it systematically destabilises the characters of just about everyone involved!

'Hereditary' is strong horror fare!
I did find the opening half of the film the strongest, in the second half I lost interest ever so slightly and the ending underwhelms a tiny bit. It does, however, do impressive work in creating an unsettling environment to tell its story - there are one or two moments that did surprise me, a lot.
Toni Collette gives a brilliant performance, one that I couldn't possible pick any holes in - top stuff! Gabriel Byrne, Alex Wolff and Milly Shapiro are worthy of praise as well. They all manage to add so much life and believability to the plot, even towards its more fantastical conclusion.

I've been meaning to watch this movie for a while now and made the mistake of watching this 12 at night while I was alone (Don't do that!) Usually horror movies don't effect me and if they do its usually while the movie is playing. But this movie has stayed with me for days now. I can't get it out of my head. This is not a movie for someone who wants jump scares, slasher death/screams or a movie that plays in the background. You have to actually pay attention or you will be completely confused at the end. There are subtle hints throughout the movie to show you where the movie is headed but there are still surprises throughout.
The acting is very good. I have to say though I love Toni Collette and that was one of the main reasons I watched it. ***Spoilers Start*** Toni Collette and Alex Wolff do an amazing job carrying this movie. After Charlie's death, the look on Alex's face conveys so much that words are not necessary to understand that shock he is under. There is no overacting or crying or screaming just shock and utter disbelief.***Spoilers End*** Everyone in the family does an amazing job in their roles. Charlie is just so creepy throughout the movie. You empathize with all of them and understand their frustrations even while knowing some of their decisions are just plain wrong.
Though there are no conventional jump scares the atmosphere of the movie has you on edge the whole time. There is a building of tension between the family from all things unsaid about their past/current trauma and the grief that they are currently going through that comes to a head. Watching this family completely come undone is emotionally heavy but also has terrifying consequences.
Definitely a must watch if you like horror. But not for people who want to be scared in the moment with killings and jump scares.

**_Rewards concentration_** [contains spoilers]
> _The 9th spirit in order is Paimon; a great king, & very Obedient to Lucifer, he appeareth in the forme of a man, sitting upon a dromedary, with a Crowne most glorious on his head. There goeth before him a host of spirits like men with Trumpets and well sounding Cymballs, and all other sorts of musicall Instruments &c. he hath a great voice, and roareth at his first comming, and his speech is such as the Magician cannot well understand, unless he compelleth him. This spirit can teach all arts and siences, and other secret Things; he can disc__over what the Earth is, and what holdeth it up in the waters, & what the wind is or where it is, or any other Thing you desire to know, he giveth dignity and confirmeth the same, he bindeth or maketh a man subject to the Magician if he desireth it he giveth good familiars, and such as can teach all arts, he is to be observed towards the North west, he is of the order of dominions and hath 200 Legions of spirits under him, one part of them is of the order of Angells & the other of Potentates, If you call this spirit Paimon alone you must make him some offering to him & there will attend him 2 kings called Bebal & Abalam, & other spirits of the order of Potentates in his host are 25 Legions because all those spirits which are subject to him, are not allwayes with him unlesse the Magician compelleth them. His Character is this which must be worn as a Lamen before thee &c._
- "_Ars Goetia_", in _Clavicula Salomonis Regis_ [_Lesser Key of Solomon_] (17th century)
When her secretive mother dies, miniatures artist Annie Graham (Toni Collette), is almost relieved, as the two had a deeply fraught relationship. With two children, 16-year-old Peter (Alex Wolff) and 13-year-old Charlie (Milly Shapiro), and a loving husband, Steve (Gabriel Byrne), Annie is determined to do a better job of raising a family than she felt her mother did. However, when she suffers another, far more devastating loss, Annie's mental state becomes increasingly precarious, as a series of terrifying revelations about her ancestry are slowly revealed.
Hereditary is writer/director Ari Aster's debut feature. However, what's worth noting is that the film is produced by Lars Knudsen, who also produced _The VVitch: A New England Folktale_ (2015). This is significant insofar as _Hereditary_ bears more than a passing resemblance to Robert Eggers's film. Mood, tone, theme, pacing, narrative structure, shot composition; all recall _The VVitch_ at times. Even the plot shares some important beats, most evident in the last shot, which is both narratively and compositionally identical to the shot in _The VVitch_ when Black Phillip speaks for the first time - a BCU on a possessed character as a disciple speaks off camera. And like _The VVitch_, you either go with the plot and let it burrow under your skin, or you remain detached and most likely find the whole enterprise unintentionally hilarious.
In a more generalised sense, there is quite a bit to praise here. For a start, to say the film is a horror is to basically give away the last 20 minutes, as up until that point it's a superbly realised semi-realist study of the crippling psychological disintegration that can accompany bereavement. Speaking of giving things away, very unusually for a Hollywood film, _Hereditary_'s trailer brilliantly misdirects the audience, making it seem as if the film revolves around the death of Annie's mother, when in actual fact, this plot strand is abandoned at the end of the first act, after which the death of Charlie becomes the central focus.
One thing the film does especially well is reward viewers who are paying attention. There are multiple hints and signs throughout of what is going to happen in the last act, and one especially well structured reward involves by far the creepiest moment in the film; the blond man standing in the shadows of the doorway, barely visible, smiling manically at Peter. This is actually the second time we see the character; he is also at the wake early in the movie, watching Charlie approaching the coffin, and, again, smiling unnaturally. This can be easily missed if you're not paying attention, and it's an extremely well realised pseudo-Easter egg. Also worthy of praise is Toni Collette, who gives a superb performance that partly recalls Shelley Duvall's hysterics in Stanley Kubrick's _The Shining_ (1980). Collette's ability to communicate everything in her psyche by simply changing her facial expression is outstanding, and somewhat reminiscent of that extraordinary piece of wordless acting by Halle Berry in the last scene of Marc Foster's _Monster's Ball_ (2001). This is especially noticeably towards the end of the film, when Annie is alternating between being herself and being controlled by Paimon; Collette's mastery of her own facial expression tells the audience everything it needs to know about what is happening.
Joshua Rothkopf, in his review of the film for _Time Out_ calls it "_a new generation's_ Exorcist." That's a bit over the top; it won't have half the same kind of societal impact as William Friedkin's film did, and it's nowhere near as good as the best horror film of the last few decades, Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez's _The Blair Witch Project_ (1999). However, it's very well made, is creepy as hell, dares to put real grief on screen, and features excellent performances (and, thankfully, only a couple of jump scares). Well worth seeing.

Simple Simon met the Pieman playing with a knife. Said Simple Simon to the Pieman: "Will you take my life?"
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

While psychological horror movies seem to be a thing of the past, with movies of this nature cropping up once every little while, _Hereditary_ creeps along with the force of looming evil. This isn't an average Halloween, popcorn-at-the-theatre moviegoing experience. Instead, what we are presented with is palpable heaviness for the better half of two hours while tensions rise in a dwindling household and with some burgeoning Satanic undertones encapsulated in some of the darkest, most isolating atmosphere that contends with the likes of _The Witch_ and _Rosemary's Baby_.
Toni Collette plays Annie Graham, mother of two children - eldest son in high school, the youngest a girl possibly at the tail-end of middle school. With the recent death of her mother, Annie attempts again and again to reconcile with the misfortunes - to put it lightly - that befalls her family. Annie's psychological state dances between the forefront of the film, while the backdrop of lingering family turmoil boils to the top.
This is an unrelenting experiment in acceptance, both placed on the key figures in the film, as well as those watching. When watching, keep in mind the word "control" and discern whether Annie had any at all. This isn't a movie for anybody - I'd go far as to say that this movie isn't for the average moviegoer. There are certain plot points that don't make sense. But if you go into this knowing what the director was trying to do, which, in my opinion, was to make the viewer feel completely uncomfortable while paying homage to some great horror movies, then it will be a rewarding watch.

It would seem the Hollywood tradition started in the 1980's of false reviews made by either non-existent people or people paid to write glowing assessments is alive and well.
That is my only way of explaining why this film is so highly regarded. I went to the user review area of IMDB just to see if I was missing something or if others thought this good looking, atmospheric, well acted two hour slog sucked as well. To my relief I found I was not alone.
What we have here is a case of style over substance. There is really nothing to "hang your hat on" with regards to what is happening to the family featured. When the reveals start coming they are either obvious or trite. The ending is complete crap, especially after the two hour journey to get to it.
The scariest scene happens early on and is not in any way supernatural. After, we just go on and on and round and round and can only assume the mother is mentally ill. That she is imagining everything that is "odd" or causing it herself. When that proves not to be the situation, the denouement we are given is, again, craptastic and straight out of any run of the mill Z grade made for VOD horror movie plot.
This has been compared to "The Exorcist" but do not let that fool you. This is no "Exorcist" or even anything close.
At best this is a film about a family dealing with mental illness. Only not!

This surprised me in that I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. Of course it was foolish of me to doubt Ben Stiller’s magic both as actor and director. Given the imagination of Mitty’s mundane character, some sequences in the film are surprisingly high octane action movie. I had expected Mitty to be less likeable and more mundane than he actually was but given the action that he eventually realises, perhaps a hidden dynamism needs to be hinted at earlier. Overall, a very enjoyable film for all ages. Great Performances and some amazingly photogenic scenery. 7/10

A truly underrated movie in my opinion. Excellent story, beautiful cinematography, and an inspirational message that somehow got overlooked. Life is meant to be lived, to be experienced... not day dreamed about, or fantasized in our heads! Get up, get out there, and get living!! I enjoyed this movie, as well as Ben Stiller's performance.

Boring, boring, boring...

The story is too simple but enjoyable and the photography is gorgeous.
Best thing is seeing Shirley MacLaine and Kristen Wiig and Adrian Martinez performances.

This is one of these international co-productions that has way too many producers and vested interests behind it, so it's no great surprise that what we do end up with is such an hybrid of so many other films, It's actually quite hard to be objective when writing about it. The obvious comparisons are with "Jaws" (1975) and "Deep Blue Sea" (1999) but this is a distinctly poor relation. Even on an IMAX screen, it moves along with all the pace of a milk-float even despite the lively contributions from the enthusiastic Jason Statham as he attacks the leviathan with a glorified Stanley knife. The remainder of the acting and pretty much all of the dialogue is typically banal and but for the very effective use of CGI this would achieve laughs not gasps. Can't wait for the sequel....

It's nice to see a Shark-led Creature Feature that's actually got some money behind it, but _The Meg_ is still really nothing special.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Child friendly horror...
You have to take in to context the post release statements by director Jon Turteltaub and lead actor Jason Statham. The Meg is not the film they either read on the page or filmed as a course of grisly schlock entertainment. This was meant to be a proper schlocker, a bloodletting monster of the deep on the loose picture, sadly the suits at the helm didn't see that as a viable money making exercise and had this cut to be a "12" friendly bums on theatre seats cash grabber. Shame on them.
What we get is a run of the mill creature feature that although once viewed does not leave a lasting impression (was anyone really hoping for that anyway?), but is kind of fun in that time filling sort of way. It runs through the modern day creature feature playbook 101. So off we go with the hero having a troubled backstory, a money made funder out of his depth, ladies with life quandaries, a man who can't swim working in the middle of the ocean! and on we go. Throw in some quite awfully scripted dialogue and it's cheese sarnie time.
Statham is nearly always a good watch - in the muscle bound action hero kind of way - though you see the cracks between what the film was meant to be and what it ended up as. For you see that The Stath comes off as taking it all too seriously, which in this released cut is ridiculous. He's surrounded by no mark actors, though no short supply of beauty (Bingbing Li socko gorgeous/Ruby Rose hard sexy) and the narrative feeds us all the pointers of exactly where this will end up. There's a couple of nifty fun homages to Jaws, some decent suspense scenes, and the cinematography (Tom Stern) is pin sharp and pleasurable.
Best bet to enjoy this is to know it's a "12" rated friendly piece, to understand it has ultimately ended up as a same old same old monster movie. It's a million miles away from the class of Jaws, and lacks the tongue in cheek knowing of Deep Blue Sea, but it fills a gap in that undemanding time wasting way. 5/10

Well, when the credits started to roll I cannot say that I felt it had been a waste of time and money. I did indeed have some enjoyment watching this movie. However, it could have been a lot better.
For starters, what is the point of making a movie about a bloody “dinosaur shark” and aim for a PG-13 rating? Whoever made that incredibly stupid decision obviously missed the mark big time. I think this was the biggest fault with the movie. There were so many missed opportunities. The entire scene at the beach at the end of the movie was just wasted for example.
The script was of course somewhat illogical with holes in it large enough to drive a, well, a Megalodon through them. This however was something that I more or less expected given the kind of movie. First of all it is science fiction and fantasy after all and second, it appears that these kind of movies never seem to get anything better than mediocre script writers…at best.
There were some good things though. I have read the book and I didn’t really like it. In my review I gave it 2 out 5 five stars. The main reason for this was that the book was more of a bad soap opera than a horror/thriller. It was so filled with unlikable, scheming and backstabbing assholes that it was really not enjoyable. Jason’s ex wife was such a despicable bitch that she alone ruined the book for example.
Luckily the movie had toned down that aspect of the book quite a lot. Actually, in the end, there was really only one truly despicable asshole in the movie and he met with the fate that he deserved thanks to his own stupidity.
So, I did enjoy the movie and, as a science fiction and fantasy fan, I am glad to have watched it. I mean, a giant pre-historic shark on the big screen does have a certain cool-factor after all. It was somewhat saved by Jason Statham being in it though and it could have been a lot better.

I got off to a bit of a bad start with this third instalment - the idea that a bloke in a building in Langley was issuing orders to murder a British journalist in a London railway station used by almost 100 million people a year really didn't sit at all well with me; so I already felt that whatever our hero wanted to do here was OK by me! Just as well, because Matt Damon has his hands full trying to stay alive and to discover the nature of the upgraded "Treadstone" operation - this time called "Blackbriar" which may well shed more light on just how "Bourne' became who he is! Again, Paul Greengrass elicits the best from his star - ably complemented by Joan Allen, again as "Landy"; David Straithairn as his ruthless pursuer "Noah Vosen" and Edgar Ramirez ("Paz") who is never far from his tail/trail. It features more end-to-end action - again, though, not gratuitously long and violent like many others I've seen and although the script is not so good in this one , it remains of the few franchises where the third film is up there with the others. I think it's done now, though - let's not have any more.

**The Bourne Ultimatum provides an exciting conclusion to the original Bourne storyline, answering questions and leaving a trail of bodies in the process.**
The Bourne Ultimatum picks up immediately where The Bourne Supremacy left off, once again raising the stakes and ratcheting up the action. This time Bourne’s memories are flooding back more and more, and he’s hellbent on bringing those responsible for Treadstone to justice. The story focuses much more on answering the questions of Bourne’s past and the CIA’s illegal activities. I enjoyed the reunion of Julia Stiles’ character with Matt Damon’s. It developed some care between them, providing a little hope and stability in a world filled with betrayal, greed, spycraft, and subterfuge. The Bourne Ultimatum is an explosive conclusion to the original Bourne trilogy and is incredibly satisfying. Still, compared to the first two, it is a little bogged down with all the questions it needs to answer the wrapping up the story. But that is a minor complaint when the movie is one of the best in the spy genre.

Solid entry that should have been the conclusion to the Bourne character, instead Damon and Greengrass chased the dollar to return to "Jason Bourne" which I remember being underwhelmed by (will be revisiting it sometime during the week).
Still, some good chase and fight sequences though the great trailer line ("If you were in your office right now we'd be having this conversation face-to-face.") makes Bourne look like an arrogant a** because if he hadn't tipped off his location, he would've avoided the chase and made it to the E. 71st location having the element of surprise. In addition, the relationship between Bourne and Nicki (sp?) still felt off.
Anyway, still was entertained but probably rank this as the third best of the series (right now, going to revisit Legacy soon). **4.0/5**

A sequel miles better than the (good) original - that's a rarity!
Those behind 'Puss in Boots: The Last Wish' absolutely smashed it out the park with this one. I had heard murmurs of hype about it so was expecting it to be very good, yet it still managed to surpass my expectations. It features a great story with well utilised characters, of which there are quite a few.
Soon after hitting play I wasn't actually sure about the animation, for one Puss himself looked different to how I remember him from 'Shrek'. However, those thoughts quickly disappeared because the style is, in fact, gorgeous. You can tell the people making this had heart in it, rather than just milking the IP for another installment.
Antonio Banderas remains a joy as Puss in Boots, a character that wouldn't be as memorable without him. Harvey Guillén comes in with a standout showing, I do think Perrito is the least interesting visually but the character (and voice) is what makes the dog a successful addition. John Mulaney (thought it was Zach Braff, ngl) is a positive newbie too.
Florence Pugh, Olivia Colman, Ray Winstone and Samson Kayo are also pluses, as are Salma Hayek and Wagner Moura. Evidently, it's a quality cast. A minor shame we didn't get anyone big back from the original series, though I do approve with how this one concludes in that regard.