_**I'd have preferred to see Michael Mann's version, but this is an impressive and heartfelt study of friendship and triumph**_
>_Next year, Ferrari's ass is mine._
- Carroll Shelby, after losing to Ferrari in the 1964 World Sports Car Championship
>_To take control of this materialised energy, to draw the reins over this monster with its steel muscles and fiery heart - there is something in the idea which appeals to an almost universal sense, the love of power._
- A.J. Baime; _Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans_ (2009)
In 2015, a long-gestating project was announced as entering pre-production – based on Brock Yates's 1991 book _Enzo Ferrari: The Man, the Cars, the Races_, the film was tentatively called _Enzo Ferrari_ and was to be written, produced, and directed by Michael Mann (_Heat_; _The Insider_; _Ali_). A long-time racing fan, Mann had been trying to bring Ferrari's story to the screen since the book was published (in 1992 it was reported that Robert De Niro was circling the role and Mann would begin shooting right after he completed work on _The Last of the Mohicans_), but in 2015, things seemed to finally be moving ahead. Christian Bale was cast as Ferrari and Noomi Rapace as his mistress, Lina Lardi. And then, nothing. Time passed and no more was heard until 2017, when it was announced that Bale had dropped out and been replaced by Hugh Jackman. And again, nothing. In the meantime, a different film was greenlighted – an adaptation of A.J. Baime's 2009 book, _Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans_. Set to star Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, it was to be written by Jason Keller (_Machine Gun Preacher_; _Mirror Mirror_; _Escape Plan_) and directed by Joseph Kosinski (_Tron: Legacy_; _Oblivion_; _Only the Brave_). That version of the project never got off the ground, but in 2018, it was announced that James Mangold (_Cop Land_; _Girl, Interrupted_; _Logan_) had signed on as director, working from a new version of Keller's script, written by Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth (_Fair Game_; _Edge of Tomorrow_; _Get On Up_). Rather confusingly, none other than Christian Bale is in the cast, although not as Ferrari, whilst Mann himself is credited as an executive producer. Is this (at least in part) the remnants of his own film? Is his credit related to nothing more than rights, or was he actively involved in making the movie? Will we still see his _Enzo Ferrari_ at some point?
_Le Mans '66_ (released in North American with the equally generic title of _Ford v Ferrari_) is an excellently made but unadventurous movie. Mangold is a fine director, but he's no Mann, nowhere near, and the film did, to a certain extent, just leave me pondering what kind of kinetic brilliance Mann would have brought to bear on similar material. In contrast, to Mann's body of work, _Le Mans '66_ could never be accused of breaking any new ground or trying anything especially original – it hits all the beats, it hits them well, but it never strays from the formula. Much as Mann's _Ali_ (2001) was a boxing movie on the surface only, being far more interested in politics and institutional racism, Mangold's film isn't really about motor cars – it's about friendship, male pride, personal integrity, sticking it to the Man, art v commerce, individuals v corporations; it is, in essence, a thematically broad and aesthetically anonymous pre-_auteur_ theory audience-pleaser made with the technology and aesthetic sensibilities of modernity. And whilst the individual parts may be unsatisfactorily safe and familiar, the whole is unexpectedly accomplished and immensely enjoyable.
The film begins in 1959 as Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) wins that year's 24 Hours of Le Mans in an Aston Martin DBR1/300. However, shortly after the victory, he's told he has a heart condition and must stop racing. The film then jumps to 1963, as Ken Miles (Christian Bale), a brilliant but volatile and unpredictable driver, is running a sports car repair garage in LA, but the venture is failing (mainly because he continuously berates his customers for one thing or another). The British-born Miles has a reputation as one of the best drivers in the world, and is renowned for his almost supernatural ability to identify problems in test cars after only one or two laps. However, because of his personality, no one will hire him. Meanwhile, Ford Motor Company Vice President and General Manager Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) suggests that Henry Ford II (a superb Tracy Letts, who steals every scene he's in) buy the cash-strapped Ferrari N.V., speculating that Ford's involvement in international racing may go some way to countering the company's reputation for making boring and unattractive family cars (in essence, he hopes the purchase will give the company more street cred). Enzo Ferrari (Remo Girone), however, turns down the deal in favour of a counter-offer by Fiat Automobiles, which is more lucrative and allows him to retain ownership of Scuderia Ferrari (Ferrari's racing division). He also calls Ford II fat. Enraged, Ford II determines to build a car capable of winning Le Mans, a race which has been dominated by Ferrari for years, winning in 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963. Iacocca reaches out to Shelby, the last non-Ferrari driver to have won the event, and asks him to design a car which can beat any Ferrari. Shelby and his engineering partner Phil Remington (Ray McKinnon) get to work but soon Shelby explains to Iacocca and Ford II that they will need a great driver as well as a well-designed car. And so he reaches out to Miles, who comes on board, but immediately clashes with the Ford executives, particularly Senior Executive Vice President Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). Nevertheless, Shelby, Remington, and Miles press on developing the GT40, a car capable of reaching speeds of 135 mph, if only it didn't keep breaking down.
_Le Mans '66_ is somewhat similar to Damien Chazelle's _First Man_ (2018), insofar as it uses the grandiose moments of history to tell an intimate story. Whereas Chazelle used the Apollo Program as the background against which to examine a failing marriage, Mangold uses the determination to win Le Mans '66 as the background against which to examine issues such as friendship and the clash between gifted individuals for whom success is its own reward and corporations who don't see value in anything unless it's monetarily successful. Indeed, the argument could be made that the film is actually a commentary on the Hollywood studio system, with Shelby and Miles representing independent filmmakers who love the craft and see the medium as an art-form, whilst the Ford executives represent the studio, always more concerned with the bottom dollar than artistic integrity, always getting in the way of the people who, if left alone to work, could produce something spectacular.
The film is also extremely funny in places, especially in a scene where Shelby shows up at Miles's house, and the two get into a fight on the street. Miles's wife Mollie (an underused Caitriona Balfe) emerges from the house, looks at the two men fighting, goes back inside, and remerges with a garden chair, a drink, and a copy of _Better Living_. She then sits down to watch the action. It's a hilarious moment, but it's one with great thematic importance – this is very much an androcentric world (Mollie is virtually the only female in the entire film), but for this brief moment, the audience is allowed to pull back and laugh at the utter ridiculousness of competitive maleness – boys will be clichéd boys, always trying to outdo each other, and getting all worked up over something as pointless as a fast car.
This thematic focus, however, is not to say the film ignores the intricacies of racing; on the contrary, there's a huge amount of techno-babble concerning vectors, aerodynamics, the mathematics of torque, the torsion of metal, and the ins and outs of physics. Additionally, although thematically, the focus isn't on the races themselves, there's no denying that the aesthetic design of these scenes is exemplary, albeit familiar. Mann would have done wonders here, but Mangold, cinematographer Phedon Papamichael (_The Ides of March_; _This Is 40_; _Nebraska_), and sound designers David Giammarco (_The Amazing Spider-Man 2_; _The Dark Tower_; _The Predator_) and Jay Wilkinson (_Furious 6_; _Man of Steel_; _Alpha_) have crafted some truly intense moments. For the most part, Mangold and Papamichael avoid any objective shots (for example, there are no overheads giving us a good vantage of the entire race), and there are very few shots showing us something that Miles is unable to see. The scenes aren't shot in the first-person, but our vision is anchored to his. This, of course, contributes to a subjective focalisation and creates the sense of being in the car with him, which brings a default level of intensity, as well as giving the viewer a perfect vantage point from which to see just how fast these guys are going and how difficult what they do actually is.
Is there a Mann influence on the racing scenes? Absolutely; if you're familiar with how Mann often shoots cars in motion (the camera affixed to the side of the car, with the screen virtually split in two – the side of the car taking up one half, the approaching road taking up the other), you simply can't help but notice the similar positioning of Papamichael's camera. Are they the best racing scenes ever put on film? No; you can find those in Lee H. Katzin's _Le Mans_ (1971), which intercuts footage shot during the real 1970 event with material staged for the film, lending the whole thing an unprecedented intensity that has yet to be topped. However, _Le Mans '66_ makes a hell of an effort, and that can only be commended.
In terms of problems, there are only two of any significance. The first concerns just how safe and rudimentary the film is. Aesthetically, although the race scenes are kinetic and exciting, there isn't anything new or inventive in them; thematically, the film doesn't say anything we haven't heard before; and structurally, it walks a very well-worn path – chances are that everything that you think might happen in _Le Mans '66_ does happen. This is your basic underdog story, and it adheres rigidly to that template. The character of Beebe is a good example of just how rigidly. In essence, he's a poorly written token villain because you can't have an underdog story without a token villain (usually in the form of bureaucratic interference). In this case, when Mangold feels the need to inject some conflict into proceedings, Beebe will pop up to throw a wrench into the works. His motivation? Apart from some brief references to how he doesn't think Miles is a "_Ford man_", his antipathy is never explained – the character is a Swiss army knife villain who can be used for multiple purposes, a one-size-fits-all token bad guy without an iota of nuance or interiority. The second problem concerns Shelby himself, who is disappointingly one-dimensional (at best), as we learn absolutely nothing about his personal life – for example, the film makes no reference to the fact that by 1963 he was on wife number three (of seven!). Who is the film's Carroll Shelby, and why should non-racing fans care about him? We never get an answer – he's Matt Damon wearing a Stetson and speaking with a Texas drawl. And that's about all the character development he gets.
Although these issues are significant in isolation, the thing about _Le Mans '66_ is that it's so well made, it rises above the clichéd and overly-familiar nature of many of the individual scenes, resulting in a whole that is very much more than the sum of its parts. A film about friendship and integrity rather than racing, it doesn't take any risks, nor does it bend any rules. Indeed it does nothing that could be labelled innovative. For all that, however, I couldn't help but enjoy it. It won't surprise you, it probably won't move you, it certainly won't change your life, but the storytelling is clear and refined, and the journey is one well worth taking.

A biography on American underdogs from a blue-collar industry with notable actors, an impressive production team, and an inspiring story; did someone say Oscars? Whatever its intent, ‘Ford v Ferrari’ is an impressive biopic that rarely strays from its path. A melding of entertainment and creativity, this should be considered both a commercial and critical success. Fire up your engine and race to the cinema to catch this film that everyone’s sure to be talking about.
- Charlie David Page
Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-ford-v-ferrari-a-racing-biopic-thats-right-on-track

"10 Cloverfield Lane" is a 2016 psychological thriller directed by Dan Trachtenberg and starring John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and John Gallagher Jr. The movie is a standalone story that takes place in the same universe as the 2008 movie "Cloverfield," but it can be enjoyed without any knowledge of the original.
The movie's plot revolves around Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a young woman who wakes up in an underground bunker after being in a car accident. She soon learns that she is not alone, as the bunker's owner Howard (John Goodman) and another survivor, Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), are also living there. Howard claims that the world above ground has been destroyed by a chemical attack, and that they are the only survivors. As the days go by, Michelle becomes increasingly suspicious of Howard's story and begins to investigate what is really happening outside of the bunker.
One of the strongest aspects of "10 Cloverfield Lane" is its cast. John Goodman delivers a stunning performance as Howard, a complex and fascinating character who oscillates between kind and sinister. Mary Elizabeth Winstead also delivers an outstanding performance as Michelle, who is smart, resourceful, and determined. John Gallagher Jr. is also very good as Emmett, providing comic relief and a counterpoint to Howard's eccentricities. The chemistry between the three leads is palpable, and their interactions are the driving force of the movie.
Another strength of the movie is its pacing. The movie is well-crafted, with a tightly plotted script that keeps the audience on the edge of their seats. The tension is expertly managed, with moments of respite used to build up suspense even further. The direction and cinematography are also top-notch, with the claustrophobic bunker scenes shot in a way that makes the audience feel as if they are trapped with the characters.
One minor flaw of the movie is its ending. Some viewers may find it unsatisfying, while others may find it to be the perfect conclusion to the story. However, it is consistent with the movie's themes and tone, and it ultimately comes down to personal preference.
In conclusion, "10 Cloverfield Lane" is a remarkable movie that deserves to be seen by anyone who loves psychological thrillers. The strong performances from the cast, taut script, and excellent direction make it a must-watch movie. I would rate it 7 out of 10.
Written and Reviewed by RSOliveira

This film started out like Misery and Moon but turned into The Mist. I knew that being a sequel to Cloverfield (which I liked) it might be about aliens but I forgot about this due to how well written it was.
It constantly kept giving you questions and contained a lot of tension filled confrontations with John Goodman (thanks to the great screenplay by Damien Chazelle).
I kind of forgot the direction that the movie would probably go and wasn't too convinced by the ending.
★★½

People are strange creatures. You can't always convince them that safety is in their best interest.
10 Cloverfield Lane is directed by Dan Trachtenberg and collectively written by Josh Campbell, Matthew Stuecken and Damien Chazelle. It stars John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr. Music is by Bear McCreary and cinematography by Jeff Cutter.
Michelle (Winstead) awakes from a car crash to find she is in a locked underground shelter...
From the off it has to be said that to know nothing about this film prior to viewing it will be an absolute bonus. For the rewards are plenty. Trachtenberg and his team have crafted a film that is tense from the get go, a piece that consistently has you wondering just what the hell is going on, not only are we puzzled by the three character dynamic in the shelter, particularly as regards Howard (Goodman), the proprietor of this particular shelter, but also just what has happened in the outside world? If anything? This only helps further the claustrophobic feel that's already brought about by the location setting of the tale.
A key strength of it, is that it, via Michelle's mindset, coerces us viewers into feeling her unease, and yet conversely we rejoice at her resourcefulness. On the same side of the coin comes her relationship with the third party in the shelter, Emmett (Gallagher Jr), it grows honestly and offers hope in what looks to be a bleak situation. But of course as tale unfolds, things start to come together, edgily so, with little spurts of action, shocks and genuine dread, all building up to the big finale, the reveals. Which will either have you spitting feathers or cursing the makers for the routes taken...
Superbly acted by the three principals (it's great that some film makers still realise Goodman is a major talent), and technically impressive for sound and vision, this coiled spring thriller is a winner. 8.5/10

Though I tend to go for older science fiction, and, on top of that, from proven directors, two things sold this for me (and I ALMOST ended up seeing this at theatres as a result): John Goodman and J.J. Abrams--the first being solid in everything he does and the second with the Midas touch, especially when it comes to my favourite of genres. I really admired its originality. The cloying nature of the antagonist, the ambiguity of the unique situation and the way everything was tied together quite neatly left me both very satisfied as a cinephile and yearning for hopefully its inevitable sequel.

> Adds a new perspective to the original film yet it retained the mystery.
Initially it was called 'The Cellar', but later it became spin-off to 'Cloverfield'. It was a regular type screen narration, unlike the first film as a found footage style. But if you the original film fan, especially monster film fan, you might end in a disappointment. Because it was a psychological-thriller-mystery than the sci-fi-action-adventure.
Only the final act determines where and how it actually connects to the Cloverfield universe, yet not very evident other than the clue the title had given and the filmmakers insisted that is indeed from the same franchise. Because I felt, it was very close to other alien invasion films like 'Skyline' and 'Battle LA' or even the latest 'The 5th Wave' than the 'Cloverfield'.
I surely enjoyed this film, like an another crazy bunker hideout theme and something which is quite similar to the recent 'Room'. Since they have revealed its association with the 'Cloverfield', I expected different kind which was actually insanely misled everybody. If there won't be a sequel, then the link between the two films are unnecessary, so I'm waiting for that. But still a very good film without those mix-ups. And I recommend you all to consider it as a one-off film in order to have a great watching experience.
Another limited cast film with barely a four characters in it and shot in a single location that cost just $15m, but earned in multiple folds. All the credit goes to the marketing tactics to tie it up with the 2008 blockbuster. It would have also done great independently, in the end everybody, including fans and filmmakers are happy for what it is now.
The suspense was so good, but it was carried out for too long. The third act picked up its pace like hell which was obviously anticipated since 'Cloverfield' hooked to it. When everybody was thinking of monsters, it is going to delivers differently and that's how the film fairs.
7.5/10

Great watch, will likely watch again, and do recommend.
This is probably my favorite Snow White story version to date. I'm a fan of Kristen Stewart, and both Chris Hemsworth and Charlize Theron are both top tier actors giving amazing performances.
A dark and gritty tale with plenty of money to fuel the amazing CG effects of the movie. The story is well laid out with complex multi-threading, Each story thread is actually interesting and I've always thought fairy tales like Snow White needed more fight and military battle scenes.
Charlize Theron really steals the show, not only as a villain, but she embodies the insanity of the character and is worth the watch all on its own.

Ever since I saw the first photographs of Snow White and the Huntsman surface on IMDb about a year ago, I've been extremely excited to see this film. And over the past few weeks, that excitement only built op more and more to the point where almost no film can meet such high expectations. See, I have always loved the fairy tale of Snow White and the evil queen, but never before had anyone attempted to make it into what I believe it was always meant to be: a Gothic tale of fantasy and horror, rather than a sweet night time story. And now, with a much promising trailer, it appeared that Rupert Sanders had fulfilled my wish. And even though he has claimed quite some artistic license story wise, the end very much justifies the means. Snow White and the Huntsman is a film worth watching.
Literally everything I ever imagined about this classic story is there. The Dark Forest is actually Dark. It's creepy and spooky in the best kind of nightmarish way. Funnily enough, throughout the film there were some analogies with the classic Disney film. For instance, in the Dark Forest, the tree branches move autonomously towards whoever dare enter their territory, grasping around like freakish clawing fingers. The mushrooms spew poisonous fumes when you touch them. And the hills literally have eyes... The Evil Queen's castle is every goth kids' dream house. And the dwarfs are rugged, mean little men. Graphically, there's simply nothing not to love.
However, without the key elements perfectly worked out, the pretty pictures alone wouldn't have made this film work. Let me start with the leading lady. I don't know why Kristen Stewart is getting so much hate, honestly. Not only is she a very talented young actress, she is the perfect Snow White. I can't imagine anyone doing a better job with this than her. She doesn't just have the right look (pretty face, pale skin and raven dark hair), she also has the right attitude to play Snow White the way her character was written: smart, daring and independent. This is no damsel in distress, this is a girl ready to kick some ass and get revenge. She just needs a little help from her friends. First and foremost friend on the list is Eric, the Huntsman. He is initially hired (or rather, commanded) by the Evil Queen, to hunt down Snow White. However, when he finds out that he has been deceived, he turns on the Queen and decides to help her instead. This character is played by Chris Hemsworth, and he is perfectly cast. He is all the Huntsman needs to be; rugged but charming, complete with a husky Scottish twang. Lastly, there is Snow White's childhood friend William, played by Sam Claflin, who sets out on his own personal mission to help her.
Of course, the tale of Snow White would not have been complete without the notorious 7 (or 8, in this case) dwarfs. It seems the casting director pulled open a can of Britain's finest for this occasion. Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Eddie Marsan, Ray Winstone, just to name a few. These characters are a delight to watch and also bring some much needed comic relief to the story, without actually turning it into a comedy (which is a good thing).
And then there's the Evil Queen, Ravenna, played by Charlize Theron. Ms Theron is a great actress, and I was really looking forward to her playing this purely evil character. And as such, the Queen was everything I had hoped for; a heartless, sadistic beauty who relies on dark magic to remain forever young and beautiful, sacrificing whosoever crosses her path for this purpose. Though strangely, viewed solely as a performance, I caught Charlize doing something I had never expected from her: she overacted. Personally I feel that her performance would have actually been much more intense had she decided not to spend half her screen time screaming at the top of her lungs, but rather just some of it, carefully dosed. However, Ms Theron has garnered a more than sufficient amount of brownie points in my book, so I'll just chalk it up to excitement. It's obvious she had a lot of fun playing this character, so she's easily forgiven. Besides, physically she fit the role perfectly and I still really enjoyed watching her.
Visually, Snow White and the Huntsman is truly stunning. The CGI is top-notch, especially the Mirror is quite awesome. It transforms into a human-shaped mass of liquid gold in order to speak, and it's one of the best visual surprises in the film. The Dark Forest is the closest thing I've ever experienced to an acid trip, and all the fantasy creatures are really cool (my favourite was the angry forest troll!).
I don't need to tell you about the story, we all know how it goes (although I've never seen Snow White in a harness before...), so there's no really big surprise anywhere, and of course you get the happy ending (trust me, that's not a spoiler). Still, it's the way this story is told here, that makes it a very exciting ride. There's only one point of critique I have, and that's the pacing. They really could have kicked it up a notch here and there.
I think, in the end, Snow White and the Huntsman actually did live up to my expectations, and that's quite an accomplishment, considering how high they were. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and I highly recommend it if you're in the mood for Snow White: The Gothic Version. Beautiful, awesome, cool!
_(June 2012)_

This is not the fairy tale from Walt Disney that we have become used to but a rather more mature dark and sinister movie. I have to say that I enjoyed this movie.
Despite that a lot of the world is much darker and filled of despair in this movie the photography is nice and the film is beautiful to watch. The film focuses a lot more on the huntsman than previous Snow White movies that I have seen and I think this is also the first one that I have seen where snow white mounts up in full battle armor. I think it worked quite well.
There is quite a few special effects in the movie but not enough to overdo it and they are reasonably well done as far as I am concerned. As I mentioned earlier the plot is somewhat different although it follows the general lines of the original story. It is still a fairly simple adventure/action plot but it holds together well enough.
The dwarfs are present of course and, although the film takes much more serious take to the Snow White story, they still give you a laugh or two. There are a couple of scenes which more or less seemed to be fillers with not that much to add to the story but they did not really disturb the flow of the movie either.
When the credits started to roll I was quite satisfied with my movie evening.

Waltons, Poronography, Tricky Dicky, Hitler, Equanimity, Bumble Bees ... And Stuff!
The Nice Guys is directed by Shane Black and Black co-writes the screenplay with Anthony Bagarozzi. It stars Russell Crowe, Ryan Gosling and Angourie Rice. Music is by John Ottman and David Buckley and cinematography by Philippe Rousselot.
1977 Los Angeles and a private detective and a muscle for hire enforcer wind up on the same case looking for a missing girl. Can opposites really attract? More importantly, can they survive not just the perils of a case that gets murkier the longer it goes on? But also each other?
I don't care if Colonel Mustard did it in the study with a candlestick. I just wanna know who he did it with and get the pictures.
How wonderful to have had Shane Black back in his comfort zone and producing such a joyful buddy buddy neo-noir of considerable substance. It was eleven years since the superb Kiss Kiss Bang Bang had reminded us that Black had few peers when it came to blending high action macho twosomes who are also armed with sharp tongues to match, this was after all the guy who also penned Lethal Weapon and The Last Boy Scout. The idea for The Nice Guys had sat in gestation for a number of years, finally it was unleashed to reward fans of his work and for those in sync with the style of film making he homages.
Much like his other buddy scriptings, we are in the company of two mismatched guys. Gosling's ex-cop Holland March is a bit goofy, afraid of the sight of blood and morally bankrupt. Crowe's muscle for hire Jackson Healy beats people up for money, but he's a stand-up guy, likes his pet fish, even has a hero streak. What binds them together is troubled family baggage, that they are both men in search of a better world, to be better men themselves, and thus Black - to give them a chance of life improvement - pitches them into the seamy underbelly of the L.A. pornography industry - with some corruption elsewhere thrown into the equation.
As a coupling March and Healy prove to be a riot. Crowe is menacing and funny with it, Gosling is affably flaky but charm personified, and thankfully both men have a knack for visual comedy (see Gosling's Lou Costello homage and Crowe's reaction to a henchman's act of fish murder). Crucially both actors can deliver killer lines, which is an absolute must for a Shane Black inspired production, for here there is never any let up, zingers are unbound. Then there is Rice (superb and actually the third lead in the play) as March's 13 year old daughter, she's got youthful zest and a killer matter of fact skill in reacting smartly to the two men currently dominating her life.
The L.A. of the 70s is expertly designed, all blink blink blinkity blink neon lighting, side-burns and disco music, dubious fashions and protest groups protesting about the most mundane of things. Then you got the pornography angle, the 70s a hot-bed (no pun intended) for the sex sells profiteers, the perfect setting for Black to trawl through it all in noir clobber. As a noir piece it has it all, femme fatales, thugs, conspiracies, voice overs and an array of colourfully odd characters (excitable and troubling henchmen, a porno Pinocchio, a young lad willing to flash the contents of his underpants for cash!). And of course there's mysteries to be solved and rocks to be upturned, all of which is played out in a whirl of stylish violence, situational comedy and fluid camera work.
Black kind of wants it all, to stay cool whilst having wry observations on the Americana of the era, and he enjoys going close to the knuckle when he can, which to some (not me) will come off as a shock value humour tactic just to ruffle feathers. It's also a minor itch that he sort of snatches from his previous works in search of reassurance - note for instance the similarities between the opening to Lethal Weapon and here with The Nice Guys. But itches be damned, so much fun and hidden dramatic depth on show here, a real treasure that makes you wish Black would stroll down neo-noir lane a bit more often. Don't believe me? Then may Richard Nixon come after you the next time you go for a swim in the pool! 9/10

I've never been a Ryan Gosling fan. No movie ever before has come as close to turning me around in that than _The Nice Guys_.
Director Shane Black is in top form with broad appeal, terrific performances, and honestly more humour than anything I've seen in years.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I strongly recommend you make the time._

> An unexpected and thoroughly entertained retro comedy!
It all began from this year's Oscars, I saw this pair for the first time and I knew its their film promotion strategy. So I went to look for the full details and I thought I'll end up as another silly comedy like 'Daddy's Home'. That's why I did not bother to check it out its teaser and trailer, but now I feel terrible for my crappy judgement. Because this was an awesome movie, definitely not just in the comedy category, but overall one of the best films of the year and it should be in everybody's top ten or twenty and nothing less.
It is a retro type film that takes place in the late 70s, LA. Where two private investigators unlikely come together to probe a mysteriously reappeared porn star from the dead as what her aunt says. But later that connects with another high profile missing girl case and so with all the leads, these two goes the length risking their lives to solve it. The remaining story reveals whether they succeed or end up as the losers.
It was from the director of 'Iron Man 3' who wrote it keeping in mind as a television series, but later turned into this beautiful comedy. The first thing is I loved the Ryan and Russell's performances. They totally nailed it, especially Ryan Gosling in many comedy scenes. I think I laughed a lot and better after a long time. That's a surprise, you know, I did not think they can do comedies, but they're beyond all the praising words.
It's not just two of them, there is a mini 'Nancy Drew Reporter' kind of character. A teen girl joins them in the investigation and her part as well had a great impact on the narration. You would think you can predict the story, but it is a well written screenplay with many twists. Everybody did their job so well, even the two hours did not look too long, but went very quick. The cast, crew, production, all must return for a sequel and I hope it will happen very soon. A must see film, but for the grown ups only.
8/10

Armageddon might not be a science lesson, but man, is it a good time! Bruce Willis leads a team of misfit oil drillers sent to save Earth from a giant asteroid, and yeah, almost none of it is scientifically accurate, but honestly, who cares?
This movie is packed with action, laughs, and just the right amount of emotional moments to keep you hooked from start to finish. The characters are great, each bringing their own quirky energy, and the mix of humor and tension works really well. The whole movie keeps you on the edge of your seat, and even if you know it’s not realistic, you’re still rooting for these guys. By the end, it actually hits you in the feels too.
Overall, Armageddon is a fantastic watch. If you’re looking for a fun, thrilling ride and don’t mind leaving real-world logic at the door, this is a movie you’ll love.

**_First, there was "2001: A Space Odyssey," and then..._**
..."Armageddon."
Lol, okay maybe it suffers from too much modern blockbuster syndrome, but I couldn't help thinking that 1998's "Armageddon" was the 1990's "2001: A Space Odyssey." I visualize the sci-fi progression something like this:
1968: "2001: A Space Odyssey"
1979: "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (which towers alone in the Trek franchise -- a profoundly spiritual TRIUMPH)
1986: "Aliens"
1998: "Armageddon"
Some might object that I omitted "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope" (1977), but it really doesn't fit the list. Don't get me wrong, it's good for what it is, a space fantasy, but it's just too kid-oriented to be relevant to adult-oriented sci-fi.
In any case, I hated "Armageddon" when I first saw it and never cared to see it again. My dislike was a combination of the whole "blockbuster" syndrome with its fast-editing to please those with ADHD approach and, believe it or not, Roger Ebert's scathing denouncement, which illustrates the power of words.
Well I decided to give it another chance. Wow, was I entertained! Despite my dislike of fast-editing techniques, the story pulled me in right away and held me to the end. Yeah, some of the melodrama is too much, like Willis' scene with his daughter (Liv Tyler) near the end (rolling my eyes), but the filmmakers actually put some depth into the story and it mixes well with the action and humor. Their best move was to focus on character so that we knew and identified (with) the many individuals before the last hour's non-stop suspense & action kicked-in.
Speaking of the humor, there are some laugh-out-loud lines, like the one on not paying taxes, ever.
Furthermore, the star-studded cast is great and I especially appreciated the inclusion of Keith David and Michael Clarke Duncan (RIP).
The film is rather long at 2 hours and 31 minutes (the DC adds two additional minutes), but the story maintains your attention and the suspense, action and F/X are literally senses-shattering.
So, yeah, it's a shameless, over-the-top "blockbuster," but it tries so hard to entertain that you can't help but respect it. Besides, in addition to the disasters, action and humor, there's some actual depth to the characters and story. Take, for instance, Willis' character stumbling upon Affleck and Tyler during an intimate moment where Affleck literally covers her with kisses while she just eats it up. Willis stops, looks, and reconsiders his stubborn position. Then you know why he does what he does at the end.
GRADE: B+/A-

Another end of the world movie. Not really action more drama then anything. It's an unlikely team that saves the world.

Directed by Michael Bay, co-written by J.J. Abrams and starring Bruce Willis just being Bruce Willis while he saves the world from a giant asteroid with a proper bunch of misfits and some oil drilling equipment. I'm in!

**Armageddon might not be as good as I think, but it’s definitely not as bad as many say.**
I know I’m an extreme to love this movie as much as I do, but I can’t help it! I know it’s filled with scientific inaccuracies (I’m ok with that. I don’t watch Michael Bay movies for the science). I know it has some cliche parts and cheesy lines, but it all just works. The casting director for this movie needs a trophy because every character has the perfect actor portraying them. From Stomare’s crazy cosmonaut to Fitchner’s by-the-book commander, along with Affleck, Duncan, Tyler, Wilson, Thornton, and more - this cast is stacked! Bruce Willis is the perfect choice for a grizzled oil driller that could save the world. The result is a cast of characters you care for, are scared for, root for, and almost mourn for. Michael Bay’s explosive directing and love for special effects guys this outlandish plot perfectly. And the soundtrack! Liv’s father, Steven Tyler, and Aerosmith provide an iconic soundtrack with songs like Sweet Emotion, Come Together, and I Don’t Wanna Miss a Thing. The cast, music, effects, camaraderie, and epic heroism make this movie one of my all-time favorites!

This starts off quite entertaingly as "Stamper" (Bruce Willis) discovers that his daughter "Grace" (Liv Tyler) has been having a romance with one of his employees "AJ" (Ben Affleck) and so chases him around a drilling establishment taking pot shots at him with a shotgun. Sadly, though, this silliness is soon replaced by a greater one as we discover a great meteor is heading our way and "Stamper" and his team might be the only hope for mankind. Egged on by "Truman" (Billy Bob Thornton) they must quickly learn to be astronauts, then by way of a Russian space station, head into space to plant a gazillion ton nuclear bomb on the thing so it will split up and harmlessly pass us by. This is probably Willis at the top of his game, lively and mischievous and Affleck was at his most eye-catching, but the rest of this just just fits nicely into the well trodden sphere of sci-fi disaster movie. The visual effects are fine, but the dialogue is pretty pedestrian and the ending has a cheesy sentimentality to it that made my eyes roll. It is far, far too long. We spend at least an hour faffing about on the preamble, establishing the characters and when finally lift off comes, I was not entirely convinced the meteor wasn't welcome. There is quite a fun contribution from cosmonaut "Andropov" (Peter Stormare) who knows just how to fix high-spec technology, but otherwise this is all just a rather colourful vehicle for the star that is enjoyable enough, eventually, but really nothing to phone home about.

Good watch, might watch again, and can recommend.
This has a great premise and stacked cast which is incredibly well balanced not only between the "diggers", but the control crew and the astronauts as well. While they take that opportunity use the characters to really build the world, the story really just boils down to "meteor going to kill earth" and "guy and girl connection, but girl's daddy doesn't like". Surprisingly the latter takes up a significant amount of time in the movie, but everyone gets their moment in the spotlight. Steve Buscemi definitely has some of the most memorable moments in the movie.
This is the first movie I can think of that has this sort of detail of space travel, let alone tried to simulate the hellish landscape of an asteroid. It really feels like they put the production value into not only to making the movie look good but getting the details right.
This is a "I laughed, I cried" sort of movie, and while I don't think it does any one thing especially well, it definitely delivers a solidly good experience.

It's Bayhem time again.
An asteroid the size of Texas is heading towards Earth, the consequence if it hits is a global killer, the end of mankind. In spite of the billions invested in the space programme, NASA has no answers other than the notion that the asteroid will need to be nuked, from the inside. Enter Harry Stamper and his rough and rugged crew of deep core drillers. Can NASA get these men up on the asteroid and do the job? The fate of mankind rests with a bunch of odd balls!
Perhaps because I have a particular kink for the disaster picture, I find it hard to understand the hate for Armageddon. I am after all a man who gleefully defends The Towering Inferno et al with staunch defiance. Armageddon does exactly what was expected from it, ridiculous high octane entertainment with laughs, peril and obligatory chest thumping bravado. All of course cloaked in director Michael Bay's gleeful insistence on blowing things up with devilish panache. Sure there are some twee moments, sure there is some less than great acting on show, but you know what? It's a disaster picture for Michael Bay's crying out loud sake! Check the brain at the door, turn the sound and colour systems up, enjoy the effects on offer and singalong to Aeromith's smashing, "I Don't Want To Miss A Thing".
Armageddon, does exactly what it says on the cover, don't take it so serious folks. 8/10

Though maybe the story here is a bit on the thin side, this is still glorious mix of family and fantasy from the hand-drawn animation of the gifted Hayao Miyazaki. It's all about two sisters - "Mei" and "Satsuki" who travel with their father to a new, rather rustic, home. It's all a grand adventure for the girls though and they are barely through the door before realising that the house has some extra special occupants. Things is - are they benign or not! Luckily, an old lady from the house nearby sets their mind at rest and soon "Granny" is looking after them from time to time in between school and visits to their ailing mother in a nearby hospital. As they explore the grounds, they discover that the place is alive with creatures both natural and supernatural - and it's the eponymous beast - a sort of hybrid between a cat and a panda - that soon becomes an integral part of their adventures as they eagerly anticipate their mother coming home. It's its simplicity that really worked well for me, here. A close-knit family with some bubbling trauma provides for a setting for their situation, but it doesn't dominate the children at play. They know sadness, sure, but they also know joy and love; there's a magical eight-legged moggy-bus (or maybe that's ten legs?) and they have their shy neighbour who's terrified of the very thought of the girls! It's a delightful combination of fantasy, community and family that you're bound to enjoy. Take a brolly, though!

cute & sweet. that's it

Aggressively cute.
'My Neighbor Totoro' holds an extremely hearty story, one told via impeccably beautiful animation. Noriko Hidaka and Chika Sakamoto standout as Satsuki and Mei, the relationship between those two characters is so sweet. They do get a bit shouty in parts which ever so slightly irritates, but that's definitely one to file under 'nit-picking'.
A simple movie, one which displays the imagination of children perfectly. Big fan of the Catbus. 🐱

(SPOILER ALERT)
I was delighted to see this subtle/multi-layered tale unfold, which seemed to play well to both a childhood audience, keen on likable characters/compelling imagination, and adults with a deeper appreciation for the symbolic backstory.
Like most of Miyazaki's films, there was an enormous focus on the power of the natural world. Whenever man perverts the natural world, the natural world seems to pushback. It appears as though the seldom seen Mother in the story is sick due to some mental/physical disconnect that she has likely had with the natural world.
Through the unique power of children to tap into their imagination, especially children living outside the city and amongst nature, Miyazaki demonstrates the unique gift that children have to re-establish the lost bond between unhealthy adults and the healing power of the natural world. I was thoroughly impressed with how delicately Miyazaki established this bond between the two children, their imagination, and the natural world. Totoro, the lovable silent giant, is a great and unexpected metaphor for the healing power of the natural world and childhood imagination :)

**"Childhood" in a movie.**
This is just perfection - a perfect way to while away time and reconnect with your youth.
Everything is outstanding in this film, but especially the way it can emote your sense of wonder and imagination.
I wish I could have watched this as a child, I would have wanted to find Totoro and the Catbus, roar like Totoro, or sleep on his belly. Oh well...I will just have to imagine it.
Its interesting to note this was released with Grave of the Fireflies, another Ghibli masterpiece, which I have summed up as being about innocence lost. **This movie is innocence maintained.**

> Its a sci-fi age and robot rules.
It came as a little surprise. Obviously I was looking for this film, but not expected to reach at this level. The film was really brilliant despite the influence of plenty of other films. Yes, the ideas were borrowed from the movies like 'Short Circuit', 'I, Robot', 'RoboCop', Real Steel', "Bicentennial Man', 'Transcendence', et cetera. But that did not bother me at all. I would call it an inspiration to make a new product out that already existed.
It was not completely depended on Dev Patel's role, otherwise woulda been a disaster. Its the Hugh Jackman, eventhough his character was not on the frontline, because of his presence, the movie was filled with some exciting and thrilling moment. His role was pretty much same to 'Real Steal', but showed in a different shade.
Silly concept, even dialogues were so stupid. I don't know, maybe because of the South African accent. But the screenplay was very good. Fast and gets the point quickly than wasting time for buildups. One of the best robot movie and it will be remembered. Looks like the sequel will be more furious and going to be an action packed item, if there will be one. Worth to watch it at least once.
7.5/10

Entertaining, even if that's almost entirely thanks to Mila Kunis.
'Friends with Benefits' has surprisingly more to it than I would've predicted, it's not just about sex, sex and sex. That does take up large portions of the film admittedly, but there's more heart to it - especially with Justin Timberlake's character.
I like Timberlake (Dylan) as an actor, but this is one of his weaker showings in my opinion. He doesn't give a negative performance and doesn't lower the quality of the film, I just felt this wasn't one of his best.
Kunis (Jamie) is terrific, as usual it seems. Her performance is very enjoyable, she portrays the personality of her character nicely. She definitely keeps things moving, even if Timberlake's role gets more depth.
Woody Harrelson is amusing as Tommy, while Richard Jenkins gives the film a touching side with his role as Mr. Harper. Overall, I reckon this gets most of what it aims to right. I'd say you should give it a view.

Even Kunis and Timberlake bodies are not able to save this movie. Quite boring with extremely verbose but not funny dialogues and trying to be "cool" mixing Internet hot topics like flash mobs in a lame way.

The Exorcist (1973) is one of those horror films that sticks with you long after the credits roll. It sets itself apart with an eerie, slow-building tension rather than relying on cheap scares. The story follows a young girl who begins exhibiting disturbing behavior, leading her mother to seek help from both medical professionals and, eventually, the church. The plot is simple but highly effective, creating an unsettling atmosphere that feels grounded in reality. It doesn’t waste time on unnecessary subplots, keeping the focus tight and the tension high.
William Friedkin’s direction is masterful, balancing realism with the supernatural in a way that makes everything feel disturbingly possible. The opening in the desert is a great example, setting up the film’s themes with a quiet unease before shifting to the main story. The cinematography reinforces the horror without feeling over-stylized, using dim lighting, tight framing, and cold color tones to build dread. The way the camera lingers just long enough on certain shots makes you feel like you’re watching something you shouldn’t be.
The acting is phenomenal across the board, but the standout performance is from Linda Blair as the possessed girl. She delivers a chilling performance that makes the supernatural feel shockingly real. Ellen Burstyn and Max von Sydow bring depth to their roles, adding weight to the film’s emotional core. The dialogue feels natural, which makes the disturbing moments hit even harder. The script is smartly written, giving just enough exposition without over-explaining, letting the horror unfold naturally.
The sound design and score elevate the entire experience. The use of silence is just as effective as the unsettling sounds that creep in at the right moments. The film’s signature theme, Tubular Bells, is simple yet haunting, perfectly setting the tone for the film. The shock scenes are well-timed and never feel excessive, keeping the horror grounded rather than over-the-top. The Exorcist still holds up today as one of the most well-crafted horror films ever made, blending strong storytelling, unsettling direction, and incredible performances into something unforgettable.