Show off!
A sequel to 2005 box office winner, "The Fantastic Four", "Rise Of The Silver Surfer" sees director Tim Story and the original cast principals return for more super hero schlocky fun. The story is based around the Marvel stories that featured the first appearance of said "Silver Surfer" in the comic book franchise. Silver Surfer (Doug Jones with Laurence Fishburne dubbing the voice) is acting as a herald for the planet devouring Galactus, the next target? Earth. Which is a bit untimely as Reed Richards/Mr Fantastic (Ioan Gruffudd) and Susan Storm/Invisible Woman (Jessica Alba) are trying to get married. Things are further problematic when after his first encounter with the Silver Surfer, Johnny Storm/Human Torch (Chris Evans) finds his powers a bit off - in fact when he touches any of the others I the team their powers are exchanged, much to Ben Grimm/The Thing's (Michael Chiklis) amusement. Not only that, but the military are starting to get heavy and annoyed with the four - and who is this back on the scene? Doctor Doom! (Julian McMahon) Thought he was dead, and how come he's in league with the military now? All of this issues must be addressed or the Earth will suffer the direst of consequences.
Budgeted at $130 million, this sequel only just made its money back domestically, however, the Worldwide takings gave it an overall profit of nearly $160 million. Which when you consider that the first film (again raking the coin in) was met with very disdainful reviews (mostly warranted outside of Evans & Chiklis' efforts), it's somewhat surprising. Yet, and it's certainly no towering genre picture, "Silver Surfer" is a hugely enjoyable movie for fans of the source comics and the undemanding popcorn muncher. The fans, and I don't speak for all of them of course, should in the main be happy that the makers have been faithful to the origins of the story. There's also some nifty humour and both Alba and Gruffudd aren't as dull as they were in the first movie. Perhaps they are more comfortable now knowing that the paying public held sway over the critics?. Evans is still the best thing in the franchise (no surprise he would go on to play "Captain America" in "The Avengers" franchise), and the appearance of Andre Braugher as General Hager is a welcome edition. While the effects are considerably better than the poor fodder served up in the first movie - granted it wouldn't have been hard to improve on that score.
With a lovely light hearted approach, "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" does its job. In the pantheon of super hero movies it sits some where in the middle, neither great or bad, just honest wholesome family fun. 20th Century Fox have announced that a reboot of the franchise is to come, so while Chris Evans goes off to mouth wateringly play "Captain America", the next lot of actors are charged with the not so easy task of winning over a tough comic book crowd, and, the critics too. 6.5/10

**Innovative. Unique. Quirky. Ridiculous. Fun. Edgar Wright creates a crazy, fun film with amazing style and effects that will make you laugh from start to finish.**
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is unlike anything you have ever seen. Unique in almost every way, with its constant stream of effects being used to brilliantly stylize and transform this film into a one-of-a-kind video game/comic book marvel! Every punch effect, explosion of coins, power-up, and health bar immerse the audience further into this live-action video game world. The movie is full of quirks and pretty dorky, but it all fits with Michael Cera’s goofy but endearing character. Edgar Wright’s style drips from every moment of the film, even with its much faster pace and more numerous effects compared to his other movies like Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz. All the gaming references and Easter eggs were hilarious. Scott Pilgrim also boasts an absurd amount of talent in its cast, with plenty of A-list stars before they were A-listers, including Captain America, Superman, Punisher, and more! Scott Pilgrim is an innovative and fun film with plenty of personality (and a little off-color humor) that make it a must-see for Conakry lovers, gamers, and Edgar Wright fans.

A film that is hated by the random but is one I like.

Try not to fall asleep while watching this movie.
This movie is as dull as the title, so it has that going for it. It's "true" advertising.
This one sort of takes over where Casino Royale left off. Bond does more detective work than action in this one.
Well, that's okay. At least we aren't overly depressed. We just fall asleep.
007 wants revenge, and it appears that this movie tries to be an "anti revenge" movie, but it flails too much to do that.

**High expectations harmed Quantum of Solace's reputation from the get-go but considering this film as the end of Casino Royale allows it to shine.**
Many find Quantum of Solace a disappointing entry in the Daniel Craig Bond era, but I beg to differ. When viewed as a stand-alone film, I can understand frustrations with a meager storyline. But when considered the conclusion of Casino Royale, this movie becomes much better. Casino Royale ends with Bond suffering a significant loss, and Quantum allows him to take revenge. Bond is still grappling with a broken heart and is less interested in the standard Bond romantic escapades than usual. In fact, the main Bond girl of the movie is more of a partner in the film than a romantic prospect. The opening fight sequence, the action, the stunts, and the locations are some of the franchise's best. The expectations following Casino Royale were so high that Quantum of Solace never stood a chance (much like Spectre following Skyfall), but when Quantum is coupled with Casino Royale, more depth and development are added to both films.

Well, I loved the theme song, I honestly thought it didn't fit well with the Bond franchise (like the theme of The Living Daylights) but over all I really liked it as a rock song.
And Olga Kurylenko I thought was a great Bond girl, plus they brought back Jeffrey Wright as Felix (and it's a reboot so it's OK he has his legs) but it was nice seeing the same person play Felix twice in a row wasn't it?
But Q, M, and Moneypenny were conspicuously absent weren't they? The plot was pretty convoluted (even for a Craig Era Bond) the action was super choppy because in 08 we were moving into that choppy means action trope that never should have been, and overall the movie stank.
Plus, this is the first time we really got to see Craig's Bond who hates being Bond character come front and center and, honestly, that is the worst way to play Bond.

I'll make it quick. I watched this movie, and after some while I realised, I had seen this one before.
It's so forgettable, you can skip it without loss. Expect disappointment if you do watch it. It's just a run-off-the-mill action flick, basically.

Whilst there is certainly loads of action in this rather procedural outing for "James Bond" (a rather uncharismatic Daniel Craig) there is a real dearth of a substantial story. Picking up from "Casino Royale" (2006), this film sees our super-spy capture elusive "Mr White" (Jesper Christiansen) only to have him escape in the most treacherous of fashions - putting all in MI6 at risk. Pretty quickly, "007" is on the trail of the ostensibly benign millionaire "Greene" (Mathieu Amalric) and as the escapades gather pace we realise that the industrialist has a cunning plan to manipulate a crime consortium of global proportions; to take over the government of Bolivia and to control the ebb and flow of one of that nation's most crucial resources. Thing is, though, that this is all just too weak. The story is just lacklustre and undercooked. The efforts of the baddies - Amalric, Anatole Taubman as henchman "Elvis" and a straight-from-central-casting Joaquín Cosio as the scheming "Gen. Medrano" just to don't create any sense of menace or peril. Far too much time is spent swinging from scaffolding, or trashing a rather impressive set for a performance of "Tosca" rather than creating a solid story with twists and turns. Again, the character of "M" (Dame Judi Dench) has much more of a role, and sacrilegious as it may be, she just isn't very good at it. She seemed to be wearing the same clothes for most of her scenes, too! The dialogue is rather dry, no fun innuendo or double-entendre and though quite spunky, Olga Kurylenko is no natural as "Camille", a girl with an axe to grind (ideally into the general's skull). It ends a bit like "Licence to Kill" (1989) and, indeed, is all just a bit too much of an hybrid of the other films to offer much by way of distinction. Good to see an Aston Martin back on screen, but otherwise this rather curiously titled film offers very little to write home about.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/quantum-of-solace-spoiler-free-review
"Quantum of Solace is one of the biggest disappointments of the respective decade, holding a titanic drop in quality compared to its predecessor. Daniel Craig's dedicated performance isn't enough to save an over-violent James Bond flick, packed with terribly handled action sequences - shaky cam and quick cuts may be the worst technical combo in cinema - and an uninspiring, utterly boring narrative. Both the villain and the new Bond girls return to being easily forgettable cliches. Despite boasting the shortest runtime of the entire franchise, I couldn't wait for this unexpectedly poor sequel to reach its underwhelming ending. A stain that the next installment would fortunately clean…"
Rating: D

_**Decent Bond flick marred by ridiculous quick-editing**_
Bond seeks justice for the death of his woman in the previous film as well as those responsible for an assassination attempt on M (Judi Dench). The trail leads from mountainous northern Italy to the rooftops of Siena, Italy, to London to Haiti and finally to the secluded desert of Bolivia and Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a world-renowned developer of green technology. Greene is intent on securing a barren area of Bolivia in exchange for assisting General Medrano stage a coup there (Joaquín Cosio). Since the CIA looks the other way, only 007 stands in Greene's way with assistance from a retired spy and two formidable beauties (Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton). M wonders if she can trust Bond or if his need for vengeance has corrupted him.
Released in 2008, "Quantum of Solace" is the second of five Bond films with Daniel Craig as Agent 007. Craig makes for a unique James Bond and I appreciate the serious vibe of his installments.
The problem with "Quantum of Solace," the 23nd Bond film (if you count 1983's non-Eon "Never Say Never Again"), is the rapid-fire editing during the action scenes. Take, for instance, the opening chase-sequence that takes place on the tollway that leads through mountain tunnels from Nice through Monte Carlo and down to Portofino in Italy. It's a spectacularly scenic area. Unfortunately you won't see much of it here, just quick flashes; more importantly, you'll hardly understand what's going on due to the moronic fast editing. The camera switches about 3 or 4 times per second! I'm sure the filmmakers think such quick angle changes convey energy, but when it's done this fast all it does is confuse, disorient and ANNOY the viewer. It wouldn't be so bad if this was the only sequence like this but, no, after Bond's initial meeting with M (Judi Dench) there's another ridiculous rapid-fire action scene.
The filmmakers need to get a grip that James Bond is not a mindless action hero. He's too smart for that; he's the ultimate 'cool' attitude. Violence for him is an irritation resorted to only when necessary. He exists for the mental play, the checkmate and, later, the martini, shaken, not stirred; the beautiful woman too, of course. The only way the average viewer can successfully make it past the 25-minute mark of "Quantum of Solace" and enjoy the movie is if s/he drinks a pot of heavily-caffeinated coffee beforehand. If you do this it's an entertaining Bond picture with some effective sequences, like when Bond and Camille find themselves stuck in the remote desert after surviving a thrilling aerial combat, plus Olga (Camille) and Gemma (Strawberry Fields) are top-of-the-line, but the annoying quick-editing in the action scenes heavily mars the flick and prevents it from being in the top tier of the franchise.
The film runs 1 hour, 46 minutes, and was shot in England, Italy, Austria, Spain, Panama (standing in for Haiti), Chili (the Atacama Desert) and Baja California (the last two standing in for Bolivia).
GRADE: C+/B-

Probably liked this a bit more than the last time I saw this ('08 or '09) but still a sizable step down from Casino Royale, although I do appreciate that this is a direct sequel (whereas it seems most Bond movies are standalone). The plot isn't the best nor is the villain, albeit Mathieu Amalric does have the creep-factor going for him. The action sequences are good but not enough quieter moments.
Plus, the (kind of) twist at the end regarding Vesper really cheapened that character, having her being duped like that, seems out of character given how perceptive she was with Bond.
In any case, still a solid enough movie as a whole and I absolutely love Olga Kuryenko, shame she never really took off. **3.25/5**

Quantum of Solace had to follow Casino Royale which rebooted the Bond franchise with critics as well as with some of the public with a youthful, angry Bond.
Quantum of Solace starts 20 minutes after the events of Casino Royale with a fast edited but choppy car chase sequence. This is the first hint that Bond is following the Bourne films as co-editor Richard Pearson previously edited one of the Bourne films. This also highlights director's Marc Forster inexperience in making action films as many of the action sequences are hard to follow because of the way it has been edited.
The film was also hampered by the 2008 writer's strike. This meant that film went into production without a full working script which also meant that the director and even Daniel Craig allegedly wrote scenes for the film. It might explain the short running time.
The film unveils Quantum as a shady organisation with tentacles everywhere even in the heart of the British security services. The setting in Bolivia with disputes about water gives the film a political edge with a cynical look at corporations making dicey alliances with dictatorships to mutually exploit the people and plunder resources.
Forster gives the film some intriguing set pieces such the opera scene which is the meeting point for Quantum operatives which Bond infiltrates.
The short running time means the film is not overblown but with Craig at the helm it is kept lean and mean.

If we refused to do business with villains, we'd have almost no one to trade with!
Quantum of Solace is directed by Marc Forster and written by Paul Haggis, Neil Purvis and Robert Wade, suggested from the stories written by Ian Fleming. It stars Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arteton & Jeffrey Wright. It is the 22nd film of the James Bond series.
Following on straight from Casino Royale, we find James Bond thirsting for revenge on those he believes responsible for Vesper Lynd's death.
Is Quantum Of Solace a great action film? Yes it surely is, is it however a great James Bond picture? Not quite, apparently, given the often venomous reaction to it from some Bond fan quarters. You wonder if Quantum Of Solace is a victim of Casino Royale's soaring success? A film that even surprised the many Daniel Craig haters. Were these internet warriors preying for a bad Bond film purely to further their argument that Craig should not be Bond? Did QOS give them smug satisfaction? Actually no it didn't, the box office and longevity of professional critiques proves this fact. Further viewings of QOS show it to be very astute in the Bond universe, where much of the charges of it not being fun enough etc just do not stick. As for not being Bondian enough? Opening car chase, a pursuit on foot that ends in a quite exhilarating rope dangle punch up, speedboat chaos, aeroplane peril with free-falling! Not Bond enough? Seriously? While it's also great to see Bond active on a motorcycle again.
The Casino Royale rebooted and re-suited offering was popular because it had an earthy make over, Daniel Craig's Bond is a fallible human being brimming with egotistical ruggedness. It's much of the same here in Quantum, where he is forced to go rouge, something that again has proved to be an itchy narrative thrust with sections of the Bond faithful. Yet as serious as he is, driven by pangs of annoyance, revenge and unanswered questions, Bond does have time to lay out a quip, there is some fun stuff their, honestly, Mother. Personally I enjoy the dark half of this Bond, "I don't have any friends", he wouldn't care", and "how many is that now?", these are moments nearly as good as the interwoven opera blood bath and Bond drinking away his demons with 6 high velocity cocktails. Then there is Craig. Ah, Craig, Daniel Craig, again perfect in the tux and kicking arse with streetwise credibility, each scar on his nicely formed body a testament to this new rugged Bond of the people. That he rises above a relatively muddling script is testament to not only his acting ability, but also his new found acceptance in this most iconic of cinematic roles amongst the British institution that is James Bond.
The rest of the cast are a mixed bunch, Jeffrey Wright & Giancarlo Giannini are again merely making up the numbers, though the last gets to give Bond one of the film's darkest and cold inducing moments. Judi Dench of course does her usual solid M performance, swearing and growing the balls she hinted at previously, while Olga Kurylenko is very much a sparky Bond girl to savour; even if the sub-plot involving her almost feels like it was shoe-horned into the script as an added extra. Elsewhere there are problems. Casino Royale, had on the surface a weak villain, a man merely playing cards to pay off a more evil source, but he was effective. Sadly here in the Quantam universe the main villain is a hindrance to the picture. Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene does a good line in smarmy, but he's so weak the film nearly crumbles under the weight of his banality. The people at the house of Bond need to realise that little fish villains are only OK if we get the big daddy shark showing his/her face later in proceedings, for if this trend continues I fear the franchise could well lose the edge so well built up in Royale, and Gemma Arteton is pretty, but pretty ineffective. The locations are sumptuous, mind, and the sets are Bondian delights, with the title sequence certainly hitting the spot in spite of the quite dreadful Jack Black and Alcia Keys' theme song that accompanies the sequence. A homage to a former great Bond film sequence is respectful but a touch lazy, but QOS still overcomes its failings to be up above many action pictures of the last decade; this in spite of it being very slim line at an hour and 45 in length. Crucially, though, it pulses with Bond aggression and egotistical nous, just as Fleming wanted it. But this only comes out with further viewings...
Skyfall will be the next venture for Bond, regardless of quality we know that it will fail to appease every Bond fan on the planet. That's just the way it is with the series, so many want so many different things from their Bond. But I feel this is a good period for Bond, they do have the right man wearing the tux and as a character he is well tuned into the times, both politically and cinematically, it's now up to the makers to fuse the two and deliver a film to fully realise the rebooted franchise's potential and maybe, just maybe, win the dissenters' trust. 7/10

**It's a shame that they did this to the Bond films**
It's upsetting for Bond fans that Eon productions ran away from the lively, fun formula that sustained the franchise for 40 years. What does it leave us with? Well - this type of Bond film unfortunately. Staggeringly bland and uninteresting. If we removed the name Bond from the film we would have no idea that we were watching a Bond movie.
It is depressing that they flushed 40 years of fun Bond films down the toilet to satiate people who dislike classic Bond adventures. They reached for a wider audience by going all generic action film to the detriment of the Bond legacy.
Who is this unsophisticated, short, blond man in the suit? Unfortunately, _he could be anyone_ - even you or I. Bond is now a lager chugging everyman. Ian Fleming would be furious.
No chance of Craig's Bond wearing _a strap on plastic seagull hat_ as Connery did in the classic Goldfinger (1964) - they would not dare make the films that fun and entertaining anymore.
It's a shame what they did to the Bond films.

05 is the worst of the Kong movies, mainly because it tries to do way too much. It tries to be epic, and because it tries to be epic it drags. DRAGS.
Watching through it, there is about an hour and a half that I would cut, mostly because it's not necessary for a movie like this. There was character development... but too much of it. There was plot, but too much of it.
If the movie was trimmed down with an eye to making it flow, it would have been decent. But instead they let it run too long with with not enough happening in it to be an exciting monster movie.
The result was kind of a drag.

They just couldn't leave him on his island could they...
King Kong is directed by Peter Jackson and Jackson co-writes the screenplay with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. It's based on a story by Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace. It stars Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, Thomas Kretschmann, Colin Hanks, Andy Serkis, Evan Parke, Jamie Bell and Kyle Chandler. Music is by James Newton Howard and cinematography by Andrew Lesnie.
After completing the hugely successful Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson turned his attentions to a reimaging of that daddy of classic creature features, King Kong. With all the new tools of the trade to hand, Jackson set about making a Kong film full of love and respect the original from 1933, whilst obviously making his own beast as it were. Story remains the same, mankind sets off to a fabled place known as Skull Island, there they find beasties not of this world, not least a gigantic mountain of a gorilla. They stupidly bring him back to America for money making exercises and things go really bad. The End.
I have personally found it most interesting re-watching the film nearly 15 years since its release, especially given we have not long had a different Kong reboot with "Kong: Skull Island" in 2017. For the differences, for better or worse depending on your proclivities in Kongdom, are enormous. Kong: Skull Island is a no brain adventure yarn, high on action but low on intelligence, but it does know it. Jackson's Kong aspired to be much more cerebral, and for the most part it achieves it. Sadly it takes a whopping 3 hours to reveal its intentions, which was a problem to many back in 2005, and is still a hindrance sitting down to watch it these days - this even knowing and preparing once again for how long it is. Frustratingly there's a great film in the mix just crying out for an hour of extraneous filler and clunky dialogue to be jettisoned.
Once set up has been achieved in the first hour, we finally get to Skull Island and it's an absolute technical treat. The look is fantastic, the turn of events as Kong and his acolytes have been introduced is terrific. From here it's creature feature mayhem, the beauty and the beast aspect kicks into gear, and it's all very comforting, thrilling even - with one exception. A dinosaur stampede looks ridiculous, the blend of human actors and CGI is so poor it belies the money spent on the effects for this production. That aside, though, the action sequences are electric, particularly the monster mash ups. Yet the quite reflective periods on Skull Island really strike a chord as well, just sections where Kong and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) are chilling out together, taking in the landscape that money mad men want to take Kong away from...
Then it's back to The States and carnage ensues, culminating in a brilliantly staged last quarter of film, where all that superb period detail gets obliterated during the battle between man and beast, and where even now I'm rooting for Kong to win! As the tenderness of the Beauty and the Beast arc subsides - and it is beautiful - it's then that you once again know that Jackson was too indulgent. His cast were on form, Serkis as Kong a revelation, this is a great picture at times, a real treat in High Definition, if only someone had fronted him up to not over indulge. For then we might have a 9/10 movie as opposed to a bloated 7/10 one.

Fantastic watch, will watch again, and do recommend.
I really wish more movies would follow this simple and great movie structure. Instead of a typical 3-act structure (not that it isn't technically there), the story is much closer to that of a video game.
You have a standard introductory act, but the rest of the movie is split into video game-esque "levels" that develop and unlock as Coraline makes new discoveries and completes different sections of the "map" / house.
There is a lot of messaging here as well, mostly concerning relationships between children and parents and how to navigate those in regard to real life events, but everything is "do not tell" levels of subtle so it's not in your face at all.
The Beldam itself is a magnificent creation of a "thing that bumps in the night" style of monster. While there is a lot left unexplained, there is plenty that is exampled about the Beldam and her world.
The movie also reminds me a lot of "The Wizard of Oz" in a few different ways so its good that there are family friendly movies of this quality that make vague callbacks to classic movies.

Quite dark, but entertaining and very well done. One of the few american animated movies I liked.

Neil Gaiman is so contemporarily vital, both in literature and cinema, because he more than anyone else (with the possible exception of Terry Gilliam) notes that children and adults alike are fascinated with what lies outside our observable and tangible realms of existence. He realized the reasons storytelling have been significantly important since the dawn of mankind, and devised, as the Brothers Grimm did, that fairy tales and children's stories had to be haunting and entertaining to be both memorable and timeless. This is a great film depicting the growing sense as a child approaches adolescence that their parents and their world aren't exactly as they seem, and that through their trials and tribulations (the 'rites of passage', if you will) they'll reach the 'happy medium' they need to in order to find true happiness in their lifetimes.
I definitely hope that all of Gaiman's books and graphic novels are made into movies (I most anticipate the 'Miracleman' graphic novels--both those by him and Alan Moore). Ones so well-written would truly be 'comic book movies' worth watching for me.

"The Terminal," starring Tom Hanks as Viktor Navorski, is more than just a heartwarming comedy about a man stuck in an airport. It's a profound exploration of human resilience, fueled by love and an indomitable spirit. The film transcends its comedic elements to reveal a powerful message about the ability of the human spirit to adapt and thrive, even in the most challenging circumstances.
Viktor's plight, thrust into a bureaucratic limbo within JFK Airport, becomes a microcosm of the human experience. He is separated from his homeland by political upheaval, facing a future shrouded in uncertainty. Yet, Viktor doesn't simply succumb to despair. Instead, he embraces his unexpected reality, turning the airport into a makeshift home, a haven for his dreams. He navigates the bustling airport life with grace, forging friendships, learning new skills, and even finding love.
His story resonates deeply, reminding us that even in the face of adversity, our innate desire for connection and purpose can prevail. Viktor's tenacity inspires us to see beyond the limitations imposed by our circumstances, to find hope and resilience within ourselves. It’s a poignant reminder that love and survival instincts can be the most powerful forces driving us forward.
However, the film also offers a unique glimpse into the overlooked world of the airport. What we often perceive as a sterile transit point becomes a vibrant microcosm of human life. Through Viktor’s journey, we witness a bustling ecosystem, teeming with diverse individuals who navigate the 24-hour cycle of this unusual environment. The film compels us to see beyond the surface, to appreciate the intricate tapestry of lives woven within this seemingly mundane space.
Ultimately, "The Terminal" is a testament to the human spirit's capacity for adaptation and perseverance. It is a film that stays with you long after the credits roll, prompting introspection about our own resilience and the hidden depths of human connection. While we may not all face Viktor's extraordinary circumstances, his story serves as a powerful reminder that within each of us lies the potential to create our own haven, to find meaning even in the most unexpected of places.

I may have watched The Terminal a while after it first came out, but I remembered no details, so I took the opportunity o watch it on Netflix recently. Whether or not I watched it before, I may not remember the details very well now either. It is a quiet movie with a slow moving plot. It stands in direct counterpoint to Spielberg’s Schindler’s List, which was slow moving in a way, but it had as a backdrop the murder of millions of people and one man’s character growth towards a time when he would try to save some of those lives. It’s quiet tone is interrupted by spurts of emotional and physical violence. The Terminal does not offer such exclamation points to add to suspense and tension.
That is not to say The Terminal is boring, though some may find it so. It is a character study of a man in limbo, neither in the United States nor able to leave it. He has left his country to go to New York City, and there is a coup back home, and since the United States does not recognize the new government, he is stuck in a section of JFK airport. The story is very loosely based on the story of an Iranian man. He was apparently paid to use his story, but they ended up only using the concept behind it.
His situation reminded me of the short story I had to read back in junior high, The Man without a Country, written by Edward Everett Hale. It told the story of a fictional soldier who was charged with treason along with Aaron Burr, and who cursed the United States saying she wished he would never have to hear about the U.S. again. He was sentenced to live out his life on board various ships with nobody ever mentioning his country in his hearing again.
But back to the movie. The story is full of small moments showing **** adjusting to his limited new environment: trying to feed himself, helping a few others whether they want help or not, finding ways of amusing himself or keeping busy and, inevitably, slowing becoming involved with a flight attendant he sees often.
Most movies need a bad guy and, as if his situation wasn’t giving our hero enough headaches, the security head played by Stanley Tucci periodically plots to get our stranded traveler arrested so that huge will be relocated and therefore someone else’s problem. But I will let you discover all of the intricacies of the plot for yourself, as well as learn what is in the can of peanuts he carries around. In total The Terminal is a pleasant enough watch, but one perhaps you will want to watch while doing housework, or multitasking in some other way.

Great watch, will likely watch again, and do recommend.
I should be able to recommend this just based on "Tom Hanks trapped in an airport", especially given how popular "Cast Away" was.
I really love what they did with him being foreign and trap in an American airport, but being hard-working and intelligent. I'm sure there is a "Larry the Cable Guy" version of this movie when it's a useless American trapped in another country that would be much funnier, but clearly a worse movie.
The progression of Hanks' character is wonderful, and while there are definitely components of this being a romantic movie, it is refreshing to see a movie that can hold the character's romantic motivations in parallel to the story's motivations and allow them to both be and be separate.
Stanley Tucci also does a great job, though its as a very unnecessary villain. Yes, it's a guy doing his job, but the character is oddly motivated for someone trying to score a promotion: something they specifically point out in the movie.
My point is that not only it is a well-made, well-performed movie, but it manages to be something larger and highlights problems with us a humans, society and bureaucracy.

Click here for a video version of this review: https://youtu.be/n9WhSQ8mYPI
Tom Hanks is a perennial favourite in our house, and his 2004 movie _The Terminal_ is one that somehow I missed along the way. I’ve now fixed that and it’s time to talk about it. Let’s start with the official description:
_Victor Navorski is a man without a country; his plane took off just as a coup d’état exploded in his homeland, leaving it in a shambles, and now he’s stranded at Kennedy Airport, where he’s holding a passport that nobody recognises. While quarantined in the transit lounge until authorities can figure out what to do with him, Viktor simply goes on living - and courts romance with a beautiful flight attendant. _
A man stuck in an airport for months on end, sounds a little far fetched? Not so much - this was actually inspired by the true story of a man named Merhan Nasseri who lived at Charles DeGaulle Airport in France from August 1988 to August 2006, yes, 18 years. He got stuck when his refugee certification documents were stolen from him in France, en route from Belgium to England. It’s an incredible story, and worth reading up on on Wikipedia.
The movie is pretty light and fluffy stuff, and Hanks is well cast as the curious and friendly Navorski. He makes the most of his situation and quickly adapts to his circumstances, and makes a number of friends with various airport staff. He also makes an enemy in the character played by Stanley Tucci, the Customs Director at the airport.
While at times it felt a bit like _Product Placement: The Movie_, it’s a charming movie that despite a few unrealistic - things like his rapid progress in a English - takes you along for a good fun ride. Hanks is great, his friends are a suitably quirky bunch, and Tucci plays the bad guy really well too. Catherine Zeta-Jones is in this too, but seems a little shoehorned in. There’s enough to work with with the “stuck in the airport” situation and didn’t really need a romantic plot line, but I guess these are the things that get done to make it appeal to a wider audience.
It’s just been removed from the Netflix catalogue here in Australia - which was the reason I finally watched it - but if you happen to come across it, it’s a really nice film that will warm your heart for a couple of hours.

Liked this guy! I guess hard to go wrong with two such great actors (I'm especially a fan of Bale). Appreciated that the ending wasn't some classic everything-ends-up-working-out.

**Overall : The captivating story of Ford v Ferrari is incredible unto itself, but powerful performance and outstanding directing elevate its rich story to masterful heights.**
The fascinating and inspiring story of the Ford Motor Company's first venture into racing. Even with no interest in racing or cars, Ford v Ferrari mesmerizes from beginning to end. Even with incredible performances from Bale and Damon, gritty effects and storytelling, and exceptional camerawork, the true history of Ford v Ferrari is the most compelling piece of this remarkable film. James Mangold's directing took each element of this extraordinary story and made it tangible and stirring. The grit and passion Bale's Ken Miles poured into his art of racing genuinely touched and inspired me. Ford v Ferrari is a premier historical drama and racing film.

Exactly what you'd expect from a movie featuring Led Zeplin in its trailer (+1 star for Christian Bale's compelling performance).

Click here for a video version of this review: https://youtu.be/IByQpyGV9Lg
Despite not being a big fan of track car racing - I’m more of a rally man - the chance to see Matt Damon and Christian Bale lead in a true life story attracted me to _Ford v Ferrari_. It’s a very good movie that tells the tale of the development of Ford’s race program to topple Ferrari as the champions of Le Mans.
Here’s the official description:
_American car designer Carroll Shelby and the British-born driver Ken Miles work together to battle corporate interference, the laws of physics, and their own personal demons to build a revolutionary race car for Ford Motor Company and take on the dominating race cars of Enzo Ferrari at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in France in 1966._
I’ll say up front that even though Ferrari is mentioned in the title, they don’t really play a huge part in the movie. I was expecting things to bounce between each camp as they tried to one up each other in the race for glory. While Ferrari are here and there throughout, the main battle of the movie is Shelby and Miles trying to get their work done amidst the interference from factions within Ford’s management.
It still makes for a great story though, and it’s a movie that takes you on a ride of many highs and lows. From technological failures and success, to corporate shenanigans, to father-son moments, this hits so many beats that it kept us entertained the whole way through. Not only does it hit them, it does them very very well. There were some moments where I was genuinely holding my breath. It’s great stuff.
Even from a technical point of view there is a lot to love about this. The cinematography was a stand out for me - some of the sunset shots were stunning, as were the very intense race sequences. I’m sure there’s CGI all through this but it was of such a good quality that it was barely noticeable.
Damon and Bale are outstanding and lead from the front, with Bale in particular seeming to inhabit the role and transform, as he so often does. Even all the side characters bring their A game and the end result is a pleasure to watch.
This is an excellent film, it’s the whole package and feels like a real film as opposed to much of the cookie cutter movies we get a lot of these days.
I thoroughly enjoyed this and highly recommend it.

Well made sports-racing movie with excellent acting by Damon and Bale (no surprise there) and the racing sequences were great, not to mention the sound design. Kind of was concerned there wouldn't be enough story to fill the nearly 2.5 hour runtime, but this kept me engaged, though the ending was a bit anticlimactic. Still, good work from James Mangold. **4.5/5**

I think _Ford v Ferrari_ suffers from mismarketing. I don't mean that it was poorly marketed, and that the trailers made it look bad or anything. Just that it was marketed inaccurately. When I was keeping myself abreast of this project, it seemed very much that the insinuation was that the movie would be a battle between Bale's and Damon's respective characters. That this would essentially be the run-through of the whole film, and the climax would feature one emerging victorious over the other. In actual fact, the opposite is true. _Ford v Ferrari_ is largely about the friendship and partnership of those two characters. An occasionally rugged, and one occasion even violent friendship, but a friendship nonetheless. Even the title is misleading. I suppose Ford does v Ferrari at a couple of points over the movie's runtime, but it's not what _Ford v Ferrari_ is **about**. In fact, Ferrari barely features in the movie at all. Here's the kicker though: I actually liked what this thing ended up being, more than I think I would have enjoyed a movie that really did revolve around Bale actually versing Damon, or one about Ford actually versing Ferrari.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

I never expected a sports film, let alone one based on a true story, to impress me so damn much. James Mangold offers one of the best, if not the best sports movie ever. With award-worthy performances from both Christian Bale and Matt Damon, Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans ‘66) has characters so exceptionally-written and so emotionally compelling that I felt like crying by the end of the film. The races are riveting and entertaining, but it’s the beautiful screenplay that gets me. Definitely, one of the movies of the year!
Rating: A+