Clint Eastwood is a good director. I've seen ten of his films, one of them being “Play Misty for Me.” A film that I think is incredible. But like any director, Clint’s films can vary in quality. In the case of “Gran Torino,” it's a good film, but probably not one I'm going to rewatch very much. Clint Eastwood and Bee Vang put in great performances. Walt, played by Clint Eastwood, is a tough character to watch. His prejudices are the main reason for that. This is my view of the character, of course, so how you feel about him depends on your views. I think the ending of the film works. It's a decent end to Walt's character journey.

There's a lot to unpack about 'Gran Torino', probably way more than I could offer an opinion on.
I fully acknowledge the talk about this film's potential impact on the world, namely for Hmong Americans (see: Bee Vang's op-ed), and I'm not saying it's perfect one bit. I admittedly do have a difficult time separating film and real life, to me films are just fictional things but I get they can/do have real world implications.
Strictly as a film, it is entertaining. Clint Eastwood is remarkably good at being a super racist and super grumpy old man, who literally hates every single person he encounters across the opening portion of the film. His character's lines in this are nuts and his delivery with them is incredible - the look of utter disgust on Walt Kowalski's face when someone pisses him off in a new way is just amusing to watch. If not for his on point delivery, it wouldn't have worked.
Eastwood is the only actor in this worth talking about on a grander level, though I could've done without his ropey singing at the end, but I did enjoy the showings of the earlier mentioned Vang, Ahney Her and John Carroll Lynch - not that the latter does much, I just like the guy as an actor... all stems from 'The Walking Dead', he's in literally one episode back in 2015 and yet I always remember his character.
I'm not sold on the ending, Walt isn't exactly redeemed and it does reek of white saviour let's be real, but it didn't affect my enjoyment in film terms to be honest.

I wonder how many taxi drivers get a fare they wish they's just driven past! Well I think poor "Dallas" (Bruce Willis) might have wished he had done that with the almost mannequin-esque "Leeloo" (Milla Jovovich) as he finds himself embroiled in a plot to conquer the planet. She speaks in syllables that wouldn't have been out of place in an edition of "The Clangers" but still manages to convey the sense of peril to mankind well enough for him to try to track down the priest "Cornelius" (Ian Holm) who might be able to locate some sacred stones that belong to the benign "Fifth Element" in time to save us from "Mangalores" and his evil henchman "Mr. Zorg" (Gary Oldman). of course, we soon learn that "Dallas" is no ordinary, pie-eating, cabbie. He is a former special forces ninja who is no stranger to an Uzi 9mm or to some nimble fisticuffs. Luc Besson manages to integrate some engaging comedy threat into a decent sci-fi adventure that raises a smile. Willis offers his usual style of charismatic, slightly sarcastic, delivery and Oldman (well, more his hairdo, really) camps up nicely as the baddie in charge of an army of alien soldiers who couldn't hit a cow on the tit with a tin cup. There's loads of action pretty much from the start as somehow we just know that Bruce is going to come through for us. It's a parody fo loads of other sci-fi concepts, but it does work.

"The Fifth Element" is like a journey down memory lane for me, brimming with nostalgia. I've lost count of how many times I've caught it on TV. The cast was on point, the makeup and costumes were seriously cool, and those futuristic locations were quite intriguing.
In the grand scheme of things, "The Fifth Element" is a certified classic. It possesses that timeless quality that's hard to find. I'd easily give it a solid 9 out of 10. But if you're a fan of this movie, you should definitely check out the animated film "Heavy Metal" (1981), which served as inspiration for many animation and science fiction films, including this one.

Negative, I am a meat Popsicle.
It's 2259 and the Earth is in mortal danger from pure evil. The only hope Earth has is something called the fifth element, which comes in the form of the newly cloned Leeloo. Along with an ex forces cab driver and a priest called Cornellius, Leeloo must piece it together before the end of mankind arrives.
Depending on which side of the fence you sit on, The Fifth Element is either a child fantasy made by an adult, or an adult fantasy made by a child! Here in lies the problem that many critics and movie watchers can't agree on. Just what does Luc Besson's film want to be? Having conceived the concept for his film at a very early age, Besson I think waited until he was comfortable with his adult eyes, and armed with the technological advancements in the late 90s, to realise his vision. With the result being a beautiful piece of science fiction that is, yes- cartoonish in every other frame.
Crucial though is that Besson's futuristic vision of New York dominates proceedings, not even a villain overdrive from Gary Oldman can detract from the colourful vistas that Besson has crafted. The sea has dropped and New York is awash with flying cars, there are no take aways anymore, the Chinese junks fly to your front door to serve you food, how cool is that? Shape shifting aliens are amongst us, who in the context of this Jean-Paul Gautier clothed universe, blend in effortlessly, and opera divas are strangely beautiful and blue creatures. In short, the film is an art direction treat, a feast for the eyes, even as the comedy and action take control in the final third.
Bruce Willis quickly leaves behind his successful trip to harder edged roles (Twelve Monkeys) to play super cabbie Korben Dallas. Gun toting and with a quip at every turn, this is the Willis that the MTV generation loves and adores. Oldman, for better or worse as Zorg, gives a memorable performance (oh my, is that a Southern American accent?), but it's with Mila Jovovich (Leeloo) that the film gets its acting spurs. A pure revelation, it begs the question on why Jovovich has failed to progress in the acting world? (stop doing tripe like Resident "will work for food" Evil films would be a good start).
Sci-fi fans will obviously get the point that the support cast features Ian Holm (Alien) and Brion James (Blade Runner), which off sets the annoying and painful turn from Chris Tucker as zany, insecure DJ Ruby Rhod (is Besson having a pop at world DJs here I wonder?). To leave us with what? A film that mildly suffers from its director giving way to his heart over his head, but hey baby, it's one groovy and enjoyable romp from start to finish regardless. 8/10

Ever since I first watched The Fifth Element in the late 90s, I've been inspired by Gary Oldman's Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I strongly recommend you make the time._

A simple enough concept: Guy must save a World (in the Future!) from Evil! by protecting a Magical Macguffin, only in this case it’s a Girl! instead of a Thing.
There’s really not a lot of story here. Not a lot of character either. Why waste valuable screen time with such paltry concerns when you can instead have Chris Tucker prancing around as a flamboyant radio host in the most annoying cinematic sci-fi supporting character not created by George Lucas? Instead, the film casts actors who do a fair job of acting simply by being themselves: Bruce Wills is Korben Dallas, a brawny, shoot-first hero who, when the chips are down, is brawny and shoot-firsty. The Magical Girlfriend MacGuffin, Leeloo, is played by Mila Jovovich (in her breakout performance) and some strategically-placed wrappings (the wrappings have had a harder time breaking into more mainstream roles). Ian Holm turns up as the Old Mentor, and filling out the cast is Gary Oldman as the antagonist Zord (in his hammiest role ever).
The film seriously rises to the level of made-for-SciFi Channel-original and no higher. The plot is nonsensical, the acting committed but laughable, and the dialogue so stiff you’d think the script pages had been starched.
So where does the film go legitimately wrong? Two main places: first, Besson carries on the proud tradition of French filmmakers doing weird things solely for the sake of being weird. The entire film is filled to the brim with the kind of idiosyncratic touches that I’ve come to expect from that region. Most of the bits don’t work, but I’ll give them credit for keeping things interesting.
The second, more serious issue is another that seems to plague genre French directors, and that’s the whole matter being played (largely) for farce. The most successful (creatively) American (sci-fi/)action films are defined in very large part by their villain. This film, like so many other sci-fi/action films I’ve seen from French directors, never establish or maintain an element of power for the villains over the heroes. The villains are painted as clueless, moronic, out of their depth, or outright incompetent. That tradition continues here. What would Star Wars be without Darth Vader? Die Hard without Hans Gruber? Aliens without…uh, aliens?
Lacking a strong (or even memorable) central villain (we have two: a Gary Oldman so hammy I’m pretty sure Muslims couldn’t work on the film, and the other being a giant planet-size ball of…Pure!Evil! No joke.), the film sacrifices the one shot it had at having some kind of weight or dimension. There’s no sense of danger or peril, no chance that the Hero won’t triumph, and [spoilers!] the day is essentially saved by a Care Bear stare.
So, does what I’ve just said make it bad? Well, yes. Let’s try again. Does that made it unenjoyable? No, and it’s an important distinction to make. The film is an interesting curiosity. After a half-hour of the bizarre, if you can let yourself be swept into its idiosyncratic world you’ll find a perfectly watchable B (or C)-movie. It rankles a bit to think about how much was wasted making dreck this dreck-y, but it’s entertaining dreck.

This movie is one of the best movies of all time! It has a great story lines and graphics of it's time and even to today's standards it is brilliant. The world is well though out and well demonstrated. Zorg is a great bad guy, played by Gary Oldman and Bruce Willis plays his role very well. All in all a excellent movie.

_Nightcrawler_ shows the dark and sadistic rise of an underground freelance video producer that left me on the edge of my seat in disbelief throughout the entire film.
The film begins following Lou Bloom, a man down on his luck during economic turmoil trying to find his way in the world. The whole first act really builds his sense of helplessness and drive to help lift himself out of his financial hardship. This drive is built upon throughout the entire story as with each step Bloom’s morals and societal lines drift farther and farther from the norms. The entire theme of the story really resonates with common day America, as you are told to work hard and pave a path for yourself no matter the cost to those around you. Dan Gilroy did an outstanding job with the direction and writing of the entire film. The unsettling nature of dialogue and characters actions/motivations is incredibly eerie as it is indicative of society today. Each scene feels real as if it is a retelling of true events. I believed every second of Lou Bloom as a character, and that is largely due to Jake Gyllenhall’s best performance to date.
Gyllenhall does such an excellent job of putting on this outcast persona. As a loner, he spends most of his time learning on the internet and due to that he does not really understand the nuances of everyday life. This is done tremendously well as every line delivered by Gyllenhall is so sharp and awkward, but the source of the words is tremendously powerful. The sense of emotion displayed by the lead is fantastic as well, he swings from being incredibly upset to quickly turning into a calm put together businessman. It demonstrates Bloom’s extreme passion for this work as his emotions blind him to not only his speech but slowly morality. Every aspect of Gyllenhall’s performance was incredibly visceral and every bit deserving of an Oscar. I touched a lot on the main lead here, but the supporting cast was all around spectacular. Rene Russo and Riz Ahmed did excellent jobs in their parts. They were able to mirror the audience's reactions to the unhinged nature that is Lou Bloom, this aspect really resonated with me.
Overall, _Nightcrawler_ was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. It was able to capture me in the world and had me completely engaged with the story Gilroy was attempting to deliver. The film ends with a bang and has left me thinking about it hours after viewing.
**Grade:** _97%_
**Verdict:** _Masterpiece_

That's my job, that's what I do, I'd like to think if you're seeing me you're having the worst day of your life.
Quite a debut from director and writer Dan Gilroy, Nightcrawler stars Jake Gyllenhall as Louis Bloom, a low level Los Angles thief desperate for work. Stumbling upon an accident he is introduced to the world of video news filming, opening his eyes to the money that can be made out of real life crime. Muscling his way onto the scene, it's not long before Louis blurs the line between the rights and wrongs of the occupation.
We here have our eyes opened to the world of the nightcrawlers (genuine people), and it's a murky one. Gilroy enjoys multi genre blending, splicing bits of horror thriller conventions with satirical barbs pointed at the television based media. Bloom is a frightening character, a sociopath that easily manoeuvres his way around this shifty world, and Gyllenhaal superbly brings him to life. Gaunt (Gyllenhaal lost a lot of weight for the part) with hollow eyes, and spouting management monologues he has learned off of the internet, Bloom only see human misery as a way of making money. Not that TV station editor Nina Romina (Renee Russo) is that much of a better person, and the relationship between the two is troublesome yet dynamic thanks to the excellent script.
The look of the picture needed to be atmospherically tight to the thematics at work, and thankfully that is the case. Predominantly set at night, it's all darkness and shadows that in turn are mixed with neon lighted cityscapes and dimmed lamplights. Bloom is at home here, the surroundings match his bents, he has found his calling to a side of the City of Angels which has a fascinating car crash kind of believability to it. The key to it all is that Gilroy and Gyllenhaal rope us viewers in to the point we can't look away, even as Bloom gets worse, morally bankrupt, we are right there with him looking trough his cameras.
The relationship between Bloom and his sole employee, Rick (Riz Ahmed) is a little undernourished, but it's a minor complaint. For this is a sharp piece of film making, gloomy of course, but thrilling and deliciously troubling into the bargain. 9/10

I find it truly amazing that Jake Gyllenhaal did not win nor was even nominated for an Oscar for this stunning performance as Louis Bloom. Makes me wonder how much of who gets nominated and who wins rides on insider politics and not on merit. Or how many Oscar noms and wins are "gifts" in the respect that either an actor has a catalog of wonderful performances and has never won (Henry Fonda comes to mind for "On Golden Pond")or the effort put into as role somehow makes it an Oscar winning performance (Leo DiCaprio in "The Revenant").
Gyllenhaal becomes his character; a feral, single minded, means justify the end "bottom feeder" catering to the worst in humanity - our seemingly built in need to view others pain. He sees nothing at all wrong with what he does or how he goes about it. Easily he is most believable sociopath I have seen on film. In a performance marked by many stand out moments perhaps the most galvanizing one is not an action sequence but a quiet moment (before a storm) where he tells an employee that "Maybe my problem isn't that I don't understand people, but that I don't like them."
How his work was over looked for an Oscar is beyond what good acting warrants and indeed must fall within the machinery of Hollywood backroom politics. Going by IMDb, he was nominated for outstanding acting by just about every other award given in entertainment except the Academy. Maybe perhaps his Lou Bloom was too good and looking at this work, for Hollywood, was like looking into the darkest darkness; understanding the reflection they saw in it was themselves.

'Nightcrawler' is a neo noir thriller starring a very impressive (and thin) Jake Gyllenhaal which cleverly satirises the media industry's obsession with horror and violence.
The poster's correlation with Nicolas Winding Refn's 'Drive' is a very clear choice because they are very similar in how they're made in terms of themes and even soundtrack. The film is also very similar to Martin Scorsese's 'Taxi Driver' and David Fincher's 'Seven' as the cinematography is very bleak and dark.
The story is disturbingly gripping as the audience view Lou Bloom's rise as an amateur journalist who seems to do anything to get the best footage of horrific crime scenes. What's more shocking are the news channels that purchase his work claiming "if it bleeds, it leads!".
Jake Gyllenhaal is brilliant in the starring role as he seems creepy but also powerful and shrewd.
★★★★

**Survival of the Batsh!t Craziest**
Here we have a sociopath for the digital age. A _Taxi Driver_ for the early 21st Century. Louis Bloom might have been born yesterday, just before taking an online course in Small Business Management, the new way to self-educate, without the petty annoyances of human contact and interaction. Every basic lesson he absorbed is put to the test with the obsessive solitary singular purpose of succeeding. Jake Gyllenhaal immerses himself in the role with psychotic stupor. He speaks with the same forward-plotting conviction whether tossing about obvious clichés or revealing something brilliant. The perfect entrepreneur. A maniacal detached idiot savant on a ruthless predatory mission. Morality and the legal system are minor roadblocks to dodge, riddles to resolve, sentiments to overcome. His brand of narcissistic psychosis is a genetic mutation that insures the survival of the species. Like an Aryan bulldozer, he cripples and kills the weak, exploiting the flaws in humanity, cannibalizing the limits of civilization, and capitalizing on each opportunity every step of the way, all for his own personal gain. All while intuiting which backs to scratch and/or stab and when. The perfect entrepreneur. The quintessential post-9/11 movie hero. Where Travis Bickle sought to take down corruption to rescue the innocent, Louis Bloom does the opposite, preying on the fallen and severing the social codes and mores that bind us for his own solitary success. American Exceptionalism. Nightcrawler is nanoeconomics in its purest, most wicked and vicious form. I'm sure some may see it not so much as a comment on what ails us but as an inspiration to venture out from, and Bloom as a persistent determined role model to imitate. How-to-Succeed-in Business-Without-Feeling. Humanity is merely a construct that can be subjugated, an apparatus to dismantle, a child's toy for the child that wants it all.

**Now You See Me (but why would you)**
Stage magic and movies are very much alike. The more convincing, the better. Unfortunately the action in this film, magic tricks, sleight of hand, hypnotizing people, is simply unbelievable - in a bad way. This is not an alternate universe with different rules of physics. This is not a group of super heroes using their powers, this is not a tale of magic becoming reality, this is simply unrealistic garbage.
As for the actors, most notably we have Mark Zuckerberg (played by Lex Luthor) trying to take away the leadership of the "Horsemen" from "Jack" (played by someone without any screen presence whatsoever). Then we have a new person in the crew, an obnoxious girl, replacing someone from the prequel who I can't remember, because they were just as forgettable as the whole drivel that makes up both stories. We have Woody, Morgan Freeman, Caine, and Harry (Potter). In other words no one likable, unless you like them. Mark Ruffalo (Hulk) also shows his unlikable side.
I tried to keep this on to help me sleep, but during the action scenes they cranked up the volume (as is customary in movies for some reason) so I ended up switching it off.
The extra star I gave is for production value.
25 August 2016
I am migrating my reviews from a different site which has become like the reality of this flick. TMDB looks awesome and I look forward to be a part of it.

**Not seeing what's coming to them, but overcoming is their task to complete.**
I never thought a sequel would be made. Now it seems this will going to be an unstoppable franchise, we could expect more, the next one was official, especially after considering how this film fared at the box office. All the main cast returned with the new ones. I think Daniel Radcliffe was good, first time I had impression like that on him after Harry Potter series. So good to see the two legends, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine. The rest of the cast was good, but nothing to praise like they have pulled off the impossible. Overall, this is a good follow-up, but not best I was looking for. Though, the writing and direction were decent with some nice Chinese locations.
The story follows after some time where the first one ended. After the biggest heist, now they are back with the new public shows. A new member was included, a female to balance with the existing ones. While performing a show, they had to abort it in the middle when the cops raid them. This time they are tricked by some unknown people and land in a foreign territory. In order to escape from there, they had to play what was instructed to them and so they comply with it. When their boss comes to their rescue, the things around them begin to change. So how it all ends was another twist.
The film was two hours long, but not bad to hook for that long when pace and the story looked better. I'm not fully satisfied, particularly about the China. I know Hollywood found its second home, but that does not mean they have to add China flavour all the time to just make money in China. They might succeed from it, particularly from earning Yuan, but I'm the not happy, the world is not happy about that. You can make full length China subject film, but this kind of altering script is becoming sick. Because all the major films trying to do the same thing. I disliked this from that perspective. So sorry Hollywood, better luck next time.
_5.5/10_

A SCREEN ZEALOTS REVIEW www.screenzealots.com
Most moviegoers weren’t clamoring for a follow-up to 2013’s smart magic heist thriller “Now You See Me,” but here’s one of the rare instances where the sequel is actually better than the original. While viewing the first film would be helpful before seeing “Now You See Me 2,” it’s not necessary. Even newbies can follow along with this slick magic show.
The Four Horsemen are back, this time fighting the powers that be with even greater illusions. Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg), Merritt (Woody Harrelson) and Jack (Dave Franco) are now joined by Lula (Lizzy Caplan, a welcome replacement for Isla Fisher as the “girl Horseman”). Mabry (Daniel Radcliffe) plays a tech nerd who forces the Horsemen to steal a chip so he can control all of the computers in the entire world — but who is really pulling the curtain? Mark Ruffalo is back as FBI agent and magician Rhodes. Here he still aids the Horsemen (and seeks to find some closure with Thaddeus (Morgan Freeman), a man Rhodes blames for the death of his father). Yes, there’s a lot going on in this convoluted plot, but it is exciting from beginning to end.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of the movie is the elevated performances. I love the trend of casting accomplished actors in fun summer movies; I think audiences get a better movie for it. These are talented actors who visibly enjoyed working together; they play off each other with an effortless believability. Their repartee is lively and their visible enthusiasm for their roles (and the film) is contagious and as a result, I was smiling throughout the whole movie. Harrelson will probably be taking some jabs for his partially silly turn (I don’t want to say how because I don’t want to spoil it), but I thought he was ridiculously amusing. No matter how you feel about the film, you have to agree that these characters are a hoot to spend a few hours with.
As with the first film, this one is packed full of entertaining twists and fun “gotchas!” A lot of it is, of course, ridiculous, but interspersed throughout the flashy trickery are some truly funny and memorable moments. Most of the stunts are CGI animation but even though they are fake, they’re still pretty damn cool. The big finale may be predictable but that makes it no less fun. I love the all of the misdirection this film includes (it’s the perfect homage to real magicians and tricksters), and it’s done in a witty and skilled fashion. Is this film as clever as it thinks it is? No. But so what? It’s a fun, wild ride.
**
A SCREEN ZEALOTS REVIEW www.screenzealots.com**

In order to thwart the evil "Grindelwald" (Johnny Depp) from creating his own Arian version of enforcers for the wizardly world, "Dumbledore" (Jude Law) drafts in his talented understudy "Newt" (Eddie Redmayne) to help him out. Unfortunately, their nemesis has recently escaped from high-security custody and so the Ministry needs help for their men "Abernethy" (Kevin Guthrie) and "Theseus" (Callum Turner) too. Perhaps if these three can join forces - at wands length - then they can track down the evil "Grindelwald" and his own young and disturbed protégé "Credence" (the all too sparingly featured Ezra Miller) who himself may be the last in a long line of pure-bloods. With all now set for a gripping and exciting vat and mouse adventure, I don't really understand why this didn't work. The ingredients are all there: the acting talents are formidable and the visual effects are genuinely impressive - but the film is completely flat. There's not an hint of passion or emotion throughout. Depp looks bored by the whole proceedings and though Redmayne tries to imbue his character with a sense of honourable mischief, even that comes across as dry and procedural. Perhaps just too much emphasis has been placed on the sophisticated look of the film? There's nowhere near enough of an anchor in the plot to keep anyone interested in the characters and instead I just found myself looking at my watch wondering if this had much longer to go. Funnily enough, this might have worked better if you'd just read it and imagined much of what's presented to us here - at least then you might have been a little more invested in the sinisterness of the threat. Instead, though, it's all just dull and doesn't really build on the antagonisms of racial prejudice and supremacy that obviously underpin this second feature. It does need to be seen in a cinema. It's grand cinematography - luckily they'd kept the set for "Hogwarts" and score from James Newton Howard give it some sense of occasion, but it's much like the first film and is very much a victory for style over substance.

Well, there was one too many twists here and I only say that because it was unnecessary. The plot would have been cleaner if they just let that one go...and don't worry, you'll know what is being mentioned when you watch it.
It would have worked in a novel, but in a screen play it just made it a bit messy and loose. And, unfortunately, that is what the critics are going to focus on. But then, J.K. is a novelist and it got a bit lost in translation from one writing style to another.
But, beyond that you have a wonderful cast and the film as a whole is delightfully fun.
Eddie Redmayne is once more the lead, and he does a decent job...but what is better is how generous both Johnny Depp and Jude Law were in the film. Each have, in their day, stolen a show or two. They are both fully capable of stealing the spotlight...but instead they took a step back rather than hogging any of the limelight and, as a result, it allowed for everyone involved to deliver a solid performance.
It could have easily gone the way of a Russel Crowe film with Law and Depp involved...however they didn't do the Crowe-hog and because of that the film ended up with more balance than it should have with the unnecessary plot turn.
In other-words, they helped bring it back from being truly over blown.
So what do you get? You get to walk into the weird world of Harry Potter again, and that is always fun. You get adventure and mystery and, again, that is always fun. You get decent performances and a solid (if bloated plot) and you walk away entertained.
It's worth viewing even if it is unbalanced. It's still entertaining and fun and, after all, that is the point of making a movie.

Confused, lost, Johnny Depp always awesome. I think the days of me playing in the Harry Potter world are over.

Better than its predecessor, even if I still didn't really dig it.
'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' has more of a vibe about it, especially early on, and is marginally better paced. Overall, though, I'm kinda split on how I feel about this second instalment. It is a definite improvement, and yet I don't have any noteworthy positives to share about it. The cast, despite names I like, are just so forgettable to me in this.
As such, I don't feel like I can give it any more than a 6/10 rating - which feels harsh, but 7/10 feels too high. With that said, I still plan to check out 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore'. It just needs that little extra oomph and these would be films that I'd enjoy, so hopefully that 2022 release will produce.

I re-watched the original _Fantastic Beasts_ today to prep for _Crimes of Grindelwald_ and it made me realise that the only reason I gave that first film a positive review was because of Queenie Goldstein. She's just **such** a sweetheart. Her character wasn't the **only** thing I liked about that movie, but without her, it still gets pushed down into Rotten. So when they took her in this one and first made her a rapist and then a Nazis, I was uh... Not exactly stoked. But that's a personal thing, and I try to, at least partially, put that aside and review on things like technical aspect. And in that Avenue, _Crimes of Grindelwald_ is an **abysmal** failure. This is not the outright worst film of the year, but it was definitely the worst one I've seen in cinemas for a long damn time.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

First of all, just like in the last movie the acting in this film is excellent but with a few exceptions. Eddie Redmayne was still excellent as Newt but I think he did a better job in the first film. Same thing with Dan Fogler who didn’t seem as funny but useless and could have just been written out of this film. But I did really like Jude Law as a young Dumbledore and Joshua Shea who plays young Newt. Joshua played younger Newt so well that he actually looked like a younger version of Eddie. Jude Law brought the same kind of attitude towards Dumbledore that we all know and love. The special effects and set designs still looked marvellous. The creatures special effects just like last time were great and looked like if we saw them in real life that’s what they would look like. The sets looked directly like they got taken directly out of a history book. Now with this film being a sequel, you would think they would fix the problems they had in the last film but for this one, they didn‘t. The main thing that bugged me was Johnny Depp. He didn’t do a good job of playing the main villain. It could be because of the writing or just because of his acting. Next is all of the subplots. I counted there are around four of them. But seeing how I couldn’t really figure out the main plot one of those subplots could have been the main plot. The last thing is the pacing in this film. Some scenes just seemed like the plot stopped for this one scene that could have just been taken out. The entire film felt really slow and only in the action scenes did it seem to pick up. At least the music was good. In the end, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald just seemed like a cash grab film. I give Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald a 5.5/10.

The first Fantastic Beasts movie was excellent. It was a bright and magical adventure. This one is going down another path and I cannot say that I was overly thrilled by that.
This movie is putting emphasis on political machinations, division between the wizards and the non-wizards, betrayals etc. etc. Take away the magic component and you really have a fairly regular racial-differences, humans are bad and all that, movie of the kind that Hollywood is all too eager to mass produce these days. Sure it is not as blunt, preachy and totally ridiculous as a lot of their creations but still … not the path I wanted these movies to take.
At least there are plenty of magic and beasts around in this movie to make the dark and, at times, boring story a bit more compelling. The magic and the beasts, i.e. the special effects, are really the most enjoyable part of this movie.
I was not too keen about Newt already in the first movie and he is not any better in this one. He is simply too nerdy and insecure for my taste. I prefer main protagonists that are more assertive and active. Having said that he is still a likable chap in general. Queenie is still annoying as hell though.
I was very positively surprised by Johnny Depp as Grindelwald though. I was not at all sure that his normal half crazy and comical acting style would make for a good main bad guy. However, he worked very well in the role.
The end is pretty much a big cliffhanger and not exactly on a good note. This is actually a fairly sad movie overall which is perhaps one reason that I, personally, did not feel overly impressed by it. That is not too say that it is not a good movie. It is just that is is not the kind of story I hoped for.

_By JD Phillips, geekr.org_
The Harry Potter movies are great but one of the main flaws of the original franchise was the struggle the films had condensing the lengthy novels into movies under three hours. Despite the Fantastic Beasts sequel not being based on a book, it still somehow feels like its stressing to condense a five hundred page book into a smaller narrative.
The movie runs from scenario to scenario so quickly that it’s hard to remember what all happened in its muddled story. That’s not to say the film is terrible at all, surprisingly. For a movie that has serious pacing problems throughout and has more interest in setting up sequels than it is at finding a memorable plot of its own, it’s actually very entertaining.
The returning cast members are all back and while none leave quite the impression they did before they’re all still entertaining in their own way. Newt is back but the movie doesn’t seem nearly as interested in him and his magical monsters than it is with all of the new elements. Redmayne is still terrific in the role, however, and makes the character much more interesting than the script does by itself.
Jacob and Tina are back as well though both of their stories are shelved for most of the film and completely forgotten in the final moments.
The biggest surprise though is that Queenie gets the best arc of any character in the movie. She was one of the more interesting characters in the original and while many of the twists in the film fall flat, the one involving her character was my favorite moment of the entire movie. I’m more excited to see her story resolved than I am most of the other elements.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone who has seen the trailers that the new characters kind of take over the film from the returning players. Jude Law and Johnny Depp’s Dumbledore and Grindelwald are what this film is more focused on than any other plot element.
Both veteran actors shine so much that the movie loses energy when they aren’t on screen. Law effortlessly settles into Dumbledore’s twinkly-eyed wise, yet manipulative schtick.
Depp also kills it as Grindelwald. In fact, it pains me to say this because of how much of an ass the actor is in real life, this is the most I’ve liked Depp as a performer since his first time playing Jack Sparrow. He avoids most of the oddball antics he’s been milking for so many years and delivers a subdued, terrifying performance as Grindelwald. He more than holds his own against Ralph Fiennes, which is saying something.
Other new players are a mixed bag. Zoe Kravitz’s Leta Lastrange is an interesting character but none of the others really stand out. Newt’s brother Theseus is a particularly big missed opportunity. The film never adequately explains what caused the rivalry between the two Scamanders and it all gets resolved before there’s a chance to go into it more. Claudia Kim’s Nagini may have caused a big stir when she was announced in one of the trailers but very little is actually done with her character. It feels more like a stunt than anything else.
The biggest stunt comes from the big reveal in the end featuring Ezra Miller’s Credence. There’s a huge twist that not only breaks established history but feels extremely forced. For one, the movie never really explains how Credence came back to life in the first place. It feels like Ezra Miller became a bigger commodity for DC since he is the Flash so now the franchise is committing more to him than initially intended. There was no hint at all in the first movie that he was secretly connected to existing characters in a big way, so it seems out of left field. Regardless, I love Ezra Miller and hope the twist gets him better material in the future.
The movie doesn’t feel much like a Fantastic Beasts franchise anymore but when it does focus on its titular magical creatures, it really shines. The design and concept of the creatures lead to some of the best visuals of the entire Harry Potter pantheon. In fact, it feels like a real shame that we can’t get a smaller franchise that is just about Newt’s magical zoological adventures. The quieter moments of the movies where Newt is just connecting with a magical animal on its own terms are truly beautiful. Unfortunately, these moments get overtaken by the larger story around them.
I feel like this franchise is straining to be two different franchises at the same time. It would almost make more sense to separate them into a smaller scale “Fantastic Beasts” franchise and a larger scale “Crimes of Grindelwald” franchise. This mishmash of different ideas is feeling a little too much like the Hobbit films.
Somehow though, despite all of the messiness of the movie’s screenplay, I still found myself entertained throughout. While it may never hit the heights of its legendary predecessors, this film easily proves that the Wizarding World still has lots of magic left. Maybe the executives at Warner Bros should consider other avenues like television or other films so that Newt’s film series doesn’t carry the weight of one of the most magical film series ever.
“Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald” may not rise to the levels one would hope for, it still proves itself to be worth your time, if even just for one viewing.
**7.0**

"Alex" the lion is quite literally king of the castle at the Central Park zoo in New York. He even has his own, built in, tanning machine. His pals, though - well they are not so enamoured of the place. After an encounter with the penguins doing their best to tunnel to Antarctica, "Marty" the zebra yearns for the wild and decides the best he can do is a train to Connecticut. When his friends discover that he has done a bunk, "Gloria" (the hippo), "Melman" (the giraffe) and "Alex" set off in hot pursuit. They don't get very far but inadvertently they do get their wish - the humans decide that these creatures should be free and so off they are shipped. En route, the pesky penguins realise that Africa is no use to them so they commandeer the ship and divert it to chillier climes. Not before, however, the crates carrying our intrepid travellers topple overboard and end up on the island of Madagascar. There they discover the population of lemurs ruled with a rod of lettuce by "King Julius" and terrorised by the local foussa (think very small lions). Of course when we hear the animals speak, we hear words. When the other creatures hear "Alex" it is a mighty roar - just what the lemurs need to keep their foes at bay. Will the visitors settle in, or miss their home comforts and want to head back home? Will their more natural instincts start to kick in and start to test the strength of their friendships? Although there is, for me at any rate, just way too much relentless dialogue - especially from the giraffe and the zebra, this is a fun family adventure with loads of action, some enjoyable pith from quite a witty and observational script and, of course, we have the message for all to adhere to about loyalty and friendship etc... The jungle animations are fun and there are not too many songs to clutter up the steady pace of the proceedings. Makes you wonder just how many animals in a zoo would actually want to be repatriated to the wild (assuming they were ever there in the first place!) to fend for themselves!

A surprisingly good and very funny movie. I laughed throughout this movie. Great family movie.

Not so much an American Psycho as a Wall Street (Journal) psycho. When you look at America in 2024 it's almost a documentary.

Well it's definitely what the title says he's a american psycho. That's an understatement. Really good movie.

I want be Patrick Bateman, well without the sociopathic tendencies and the murder, but his workout routine, apartment, and job are cool...
Jokes aside, this movie bangs, literally and metaphorically. Christian Bale is great. The cast is stacked. Cool imagery, fantastically paced, and some wild turns the had me baffled.
Score: 90%
Verdict: Excellent

**A detailed explanation of the wealthy Americans on Wall Street**
It is one of the most important films during the last 20 years and one of the powerful movie that left an impact on American cinema. The film talks about a hysterical, insane, murderous character who herself is a character who realizes from within that she is a murderer and describes herself with important dialogue sentences that talk about the nature of the character in the voice of the hero himself.
Patrick Bateman was a thug who wanted to convey his suffering to others, and he did not see that no one had a future. He did not show any good feelings to anyone, because his suffering wanted to convey it to everyone around him, while he was without emotion and did not desire anything but hatred and hatred for everyone. It was these sentences at the beginning and end of the movie that were a complete description of the character.
The director wanted to show the viewers the nature of Wall Street work and who works inside it in the old periods of this time, and all their concern and only goal was appearances and pretending with suits, glasses and cards that they made for themselves.
Acting was at the highest level from Christian Bale. Acting was the distinguishing element in the work, in addition to music. The idea of linking musical or romantic works with a murderer was unique