I was not a fan of Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey. The trend of indie filmmakers converting public domain characters into horror movies often results in rushed and uninspired projects. The first film in this series exemplified this problem, feeling more like a gimmick than a well-thought-out movie. However, the filmmakers have significantly improved with Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey 2, delivering a much more enjoyable and polished film.
Initially, I was skeptical about this sequel due to my disappointment with the first installment but a friend who also reviews movies, encouraged me to give it a chance. The original felt hastily put together, with a predictable storyline and underdeveloped characters.
In contrast, the sequel demonstrates significant growth. The story is well-crafted and engaging, providing a solid foundation for the horror elements. The filmmakers have taken the time to develop the plot and characters, resulting in a more immersive and enjoyable experience.
As a horror fan, I found this movie to be a lot of fun. The blend of familiar children's characters with dark, horror elements is handled with more care and creativity this time around. The film features inventive scares and a creepy atmosphere that horror enthusiasts will appreciate. It is also does not pull punches with the gore.
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie and am excited to see where the filmmakers take this concept next. They have demonstrated growth and potential, suggesting that future installments could be even better. This film has set a higher standard for public domain horror adaptations, proving that with the right approach, these projects can be both innovative and entertaining.

This movie is excellent. Beautiful. Good story. Funny stuff. Drama. Twists and turns. Despite all that excellence, the best feature of this film is the fact that you could turn it off and come back to it the next day when the intermission pops up.

Did this really need to be 3½ hours long? Well, no - I don't think so. As far as it goes, though, it features a stunning performance from Adrien Brody as fictional Hungarian architect "Tóth" who has manages to survive some torrid wartime experiences in Europe and make it to New York. He has family there, and that's the conduit to a meeting with the wealthy "Van Buren" (Guy Pearce) who decides that he wants him to design a public utility building - think Hearst Castle only without any style or shape to it. Indeed the title could very well be applied to his fascist style of bleak and angular artistry, but his new benefactor is prepared to commit £850,000 to the project so he's delighted. That's clearly to the chagrin of "Harry" (How Alwyn) whose role here is that of a meddlesome provoker as he he constantly tries to intervene between the architect and his father. "Van Buren" senior also manages to facilitate his repatriation with wife (Felicity Jones) and her niece "Zsófia" (Raffey Cassidy) but that doesn't quite go to plan either, and soon seems to further pile on the increasing misery for a "Tóth" who is treading on eggshells on all fronts now as he tries to build his charm-free edifice. The centrepiece of this is to be an altar stone, and for that he and his boss travel to the mountains of Carrara, rarely seen in film since Charlton Heston saw the ceiling of the Sistine in the clouds there. Here something shocking happens that ultimately changes the whole dynamic of that relationship and of the film itself. It's this last twenty minutes that I felt saw the wheels come off. The thrust of the story throughout appears to emphasise the man and his family as outsiders. As them being a means to an end and little better than a commodity to be used and abused as one of the "Van Buren" men see fit, but the drunken violence that concludes the story seems excessively designed to disgust for the sake to it. Why? I didn't get it, nor the consequent denouement. It's also interesting that much is being made of the VistaVision angle. That which put so many from Humphrey Bogart to John Wayne on the big screen decades ago now appears to have been "rediscovered" as if it were revelatory. Well it might help the photography, but not the story - and that begins to run out steam before the unnecessary (from a plot perspective) intermission. Part one offers a compelling look at obsession and the odious nature of patronage and hypocrisy. Part two isn't nearly so good, is more soapy and far less substantial - there is plenty going on but none of the threads really get the attention they need to make them interesting, or to ant them together cohesively. Brady Corbet has one hell of an imagination but perhaps this needed a more objective, and judicious, hand at the tiller. It's good, but it's not anything like as good as it's being hyped up to be. A big screen is essential, though. It will look depressingly ordinary on the television.

Pursuing the American Dream is an ambition of almost every immigrant who manages to make it to this country’s shores. Its realization can take many forms, too, depending on one’s circumstances. But, as many new arrivals discover for themselves, there’s no guarantee of success (or, at the very least, they may find that the journey can be more problematic than anticipated). One such story that provides the focus for this optimistic undertaking is the latest offering from writer-director Brady Corbet. The film follows the odyssey of László Tóth (Adrien Brody), a fictional Jewish Hungarian architect who flees Europe in 1947 after being interred in a concentration camp during World War II. He initially struggles to assimilate, to re-establish his career, and to find a way to bring his wife, Erzsebét (Felicity Jones), to America. But, despite these sundry challenges, his fortunes change drastically when he’s commissioned to design a high-profile mixed use community center with the generous support of a wealthy and powerful benefactor, a capricious, enigmatic industrialist (Guy Pearce) whose many impulsive, emotionally charged whims provide László with a firsthand introduction to the many possibilities and pitfalls tied to that elusive American Dream. In telling this story, the filmmaker explores the ups and downs associated with these themes, as well as an array of additional diverse story threads involving the protagonist’s professional pursuits and personal life. These combined elements make for an engaging and intriguing tale, even if some of the story arcs and character traits are unevenly developed. That sometimes includes the nature of László himself, which is somewhat perplexing given the production’s hefty 3:35:00 runtime (with an included intermission), a duration that should provide ample time for the picture to sufficiently flesh out its core narrative elements and character attributes. That shortcoming aside, though, “The Brutalist” has myriad strengths to its credit, including the fine performances of Pearce, Jones, Golden Globe Award winner Brody and a host of capable supporting players, along with its superb cinematography, stirring original score, and ably sustained pacing (quite a commendable feat for a film of this length). Admittedly, this offering’s solid opening act is far superior to its back half, which tends to sag at times as it wears on, but, on balance, this Golden Globe winner for best drama and best director generally holds up well. In an awards season that has had more than its share of dismal disappointments, it’s heartening to finally find a release that comes closer to approaching the standards that a film should embody to merit the kinds of accolades and attention such honorees truly deserve. It may not be perfect, but it’s a far sight better than many of its other 2024 cinematic peers.

Coming out isn’t always an easy process, especially for anyone who has lingering doubts about his or her sexual orientation. However, given the prevailing conditions present in contemporary society, this gay comedy-drama from directors Stephanie Allynne and Tig Nataro stretches credibility where that notion is concerned. Thirty-two-year-old Angelino Lucy (Dakota Johnson) can’t figure herself out sexually speaking. She’s not particularly interested in men, as her sometimes-male companion, Ben (Whitmer Thomas), finds out, but she’s not sure if she’s genuinely attracted to women. She spends considerable time with her bestie, Jane (Sonoya Mizuno), a straight woman whom she’s known for years but who is also about to relocate from Los Angeles to London for work, a development about which Lucy has mixed feelings. So, when Lucy at last opens up to Jane about her possible lesbian leanings, she does all she can to get her friend a date before she leaves for England. But, somewhat perplexingly, Lucy hesitates at every turn, fearful of what might transpire. And therein lies the problem with this film – it’s just not believable. If this picture were made (or set) 40 years ago, when social acceptance of alternative lifestyles was more problematic, then it would probably come across as more plausible. But, given current conditions, it’s simply not convincing. If Lucy were to live in an isolated conservative small town, it might be more conceivable, but she lives in Los Angeles, for goodness sake, where alternative sexuality is virtually a prerequisite for residency. Lucy’s exaggerated whining about her reluctance to move forward grows tiresome, too, and it’s easy to see why Jane loses patience with her. That’s a problem compounded by Johnson’s underwhelming performance, which is annoying and anything but persuasive. The script’s humor is fairly thin, too, save for the laughs generated in cameo appearances by LGBTQ+ icons like Sean Hayes and Nataro, who delivers a positively hilarious performance as a deadpan New Age retreat facilitator. But the film genuinely could use more of these edgy narrative elements (along with greater overall believability) to succeed as a viable release. In fact, given Nataro’s reputation as a source of outrageously sidesplitting comedy, this project is surprisingly tame and inherently more conventional than what one would expect out of someone so innately talented. The picture’s aptly timed streaming release for Pride Month isn’t at all unexpected, but it’s genuinely unfortunate that this just isn’t a very good movie. Gay cinema has come a long way in recent decades, but this offering feels like an anachronistic throwback to the early days of the genre. We’ve seen stories much like this before, but the LGBTQ+ community deserves something more inventive – and better overall – at this point.

I want to give this movie a higher rating for the historical aspect but the supervillain is just so ludicrous that he ruins the climax. From the moment his superpower is revealed, it starts going downhill because it becomes very apparent that in order to wrap up this story they're gonna have to come up with an utterly ridiculous solution to the ludicrous problem, and that's exactly what they did.
I enjoyed the majority of this but I feel like I just wasted two hours because the climax sucked.
Contrary to one of the other reviews here, I'm gonna say that the plot is not at all complex and certainly not so complex that an English speaker can't follow it. It's nothing we haven't seen before in an Asian crime thriller. The only bit that might blow your mind if you're not aware of your history is that Walled City was actually a real place that existed until 1994 and it looked a lot like what we see on screen.
I read this movie is based on a comic? That explains the ridiculous supervillain.
LET'S GET POLITICAL!
It goes to show how ridiculous and flaky people's political culture wars are when you're staring at a self-governing commune and can't even call it communism, or point out the woke brigade that beats the snot out of a man for beating a woman to death. It's apparently only "social commentary" when we're not talking about American slavery and feminism, although, all the women we see in this movie have jobs.
Walled City was torn down to build a park.
One article says, "Tens of thousands of residents and workers in the Walled City were relocated and laid off, some with enough compensation to restart their lives but most without." while another article says, "The compensation package for residents and business owners totaled $2.76 billion. On average, residents received around $380,000 for their individual flats. Negotiations progressed over several years, and by November 1991, only 457 households were still to agree terms. By that time, most of the 33,000 residents had moved out. Some, however, clung on to the end, and on July 2, 1992, riot police entered the city and forced out the last remaining residents. [...] On March 23, 1993, a wrecker’s ball smashed into the side of an eight-story tower block on the edge of the Walled City. [...] The moment was applauded by a crowd of invited guests and dignitaries. It was also greeted with shouts of anger from former residents who had gathered for one last, futile protest."
Most articles you'll read are sanitized and romanticized, though every one manages to refer to Walled City as a lawless crime den that foreigners were afraid of. _If only foreigners were afraid of more places..._

I remember flying over the Kowloon walled city when I first visited Hong Kong in 1987. I distinctly remember the drab cramped spaces and the washing fluttering like multi coloured flags, hanging from grimy windows. Until then, I had no idea people could and did, live like this.
Twilight of the Warrior: Walled In takes its cue from the graphic novel to re-create the environment inside the walled city. A city which was, in essence, a self governing city, withing Hong Kong city. Unsurprisingly, criminal gangs vie for supremacy in the walled city. This story focuses on internal conflict within the controlling gang, triggered by the arrival of a newcomer with a past shared by the gangs leader. A situation taken advantage of by an external gang, who want control of the city, for their own benefit.
This tale capably mixes fantasy, martial arts and social commentary. It's a detailed story, that you need to pay attention to or it can become a little hard to follow. Not helped by the fact its probably in Cantonese (Hong Kong's primary language), not English. That said, its a decent back story that's worth your time, highlighting the hardships but also the comradeship, of the walled city's residents.
Action sequences which dominate the film, mix martial arts and parkour within the confined city spaces, in a way that's frenetically entertaining, if, at times, a little unbelievable.
There is a profusion of respected, Hong Kong acting talent on display. too, which adds real depth and polish to this production.
In summary, Twilight of the Warriors deep dives into a period of Hong Kong history that's been forgotten, in a way that's nostalgic, at times raw in its social commentary and extravagant in its martial arts set pieces. Perhaps the only downside, the complex story, that can be difficult for non-Chinese speakers to follow.

I didn't make it to Hong Kong til 1994 so this famous Kowloon walled city had already gone but it's legend hadn't. It was the equivalent of a large block of properties, within properties - a mass of alleys, corridors and tunnels in which the law was enforced in a very different way from the outside. This story starts with a battle that sees control pass from "Jim" to "Cyclone" (Louis Koo). There's now a truce of sorts that exists between the bosses and the outside world, but that's about to be thrown into turmoil by the arrival of "Lok" (Raymond Lam). He works hard to get an official ID card but is fleeced by "Mr. Big" (Sammo Hung) and escapes with a bag of his cocaine into the walled city. That's where he encounters it's ruler and his sidekick "Shin" (Terrence Lau) and where his willingness to work and his fortitude ingratiates him with the boss. On the outside, "Cyclone" has a business relationship with "Chau" (Richie Jen) who has really only one purpose left in life. That's to avenge the murder of his family by the now dead "Jim". The focus of his revenge is that man's own son - but nobody nows what happened to him. Well, swiftly you can add two and two and get "Lok". Loyalties are now tested, friendships challenged and forged whilst the fragile peace is soon in tatters. With battle lines drawn and ambitions clear, it's all out war and the action mounts up. This is a sold end-to-end martial arts film with plenty of nimble and lithe combat; acrobatics and bodies that must be made of skin-clad tungsten steel. It's got a little bit of mysticism and embodies human nature, whether benign or not, quite entertainingly and by not just throwing itself about, but by at least trying to create and develop the characters. The denouement takes it's time and does become a bit repetitive, but as a quickly paced drama it really does fly by for two hours. Honour amongst thieves - but always sleep with your back to the wall.

"_Fuck the tour!_"
Naomi Scott... I did not regonize your game. You acted your tushy off in this! The first Smile was a nice refreshing horror movie and this sequel does not disappoint. Hard to not to mention parts that would be spoilers, but there are some twists that made me want to watch this again just to make sure I didn't miss any details.

I found it to be a significant improvement over the first installment. Naomi Scott's portrayal of Skye Riley is outstanding; she brings depth and authenticity to every emotional scene, making her character's journey compelling and relatable.
The film benefits from a higher budget of $28 million, compared to the original's $17 million, which is evident in its enhanced production quality. The opening prologue is particularly gripping, setting a tense and immersive tone right from the start.
Director Parker Finn adopts a more mainstream approach with effective jump scares and incorporates intense gore scenes that heighten the horror experience. The narrative cleverly blurs the lines between reality and illusion, keeping viewers on edge and questioning what's real.
Overall, *Smile 2* delivers a thrilling and psychologically engaging horror experience, surpassing its predecessor in both storytelling and production.

First Smile was a great horror movie. I was worried that second one wouldn't be very good as usually this is how it happens, but thankfully, Smile 2 was a great continuation of first one. It didn't disappoint. I'm very pleased with Smile 2. They did great.

The only thing I can remember about the first Smile (2022) was that it went downhill after that opening scene with the patient.
I had no intention of watching a second one until I saw it was Naomi Scott, "... fine." Now I'm looking forward to the next one.
Naomi Scott carried this film with her performance.

Tween horror. Perfect to have on in the background whilst making tiktoks or like somthing I dunno lol.
I get the feeling the script for this was written in text speak and emojis. I'm not sure if this is Blumhouse, I couldn't summon enough interest to bother finding out.
If you've seen the first flick (not movie and certainly not film), you know what this is about, cheese "jump scares" that solely rely on the sound being loud and some tween-palette friendly "gore" - a bit of blood. Nothing's shocking, horrifying or engaging and the "acting" is terrible, which is maybe the most shocking element.
That guy that was in The White Lotus, I've seen be good in things other than this, he's not good in the 5 minutes or so he's in this.
Naomi Scott waddles round like a less obese version of Florence Pugh with even less charisma. She's pretending to be a pop star, a story misstep that leads to some AI generated music that somehow sounds a decade or so dated.
Film could have been vastly improved if it was ~80 minutes of Scott being attack with a screwdriver, but that didn't happen and it's 2hours of mediocrity. Looking at the sidebar here, it made money, so I guess we're getting Smile 3. With some luck, that will be an entirely AI project and no actual creatives will be harmed in the creation process.

An improvement on the (good) original.
Naomi Scott's performance is outstanding, she is so convincing and fully committed to the role all the way through - to the point that she elevates the film as a whole up a notch. The rest of the cast are good, e.g. Rosemarie DeWitt, but 'Smile 2' is very much Scott's movie.
The run time is perhaps a little longer than it needs to be, though to be honest that is only a minor criticism in the grand scheme of things. Much of what is onscreen helps nullify any potential (minor) pacing issues, the violence and gore is quite graphic but it is nicely done and is exactly what we want to see from a production of this sort, let's be real.
I will say this does feature a few too many cheap jump scares, something I'm not a big fan of, but just like the above it isn't a notion that hinders the overall quality of the end result. Based on the ending, the next sequel could be a lot of fun - here's hoping!

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/smile-2-review/
"Smile 2 not only proves to be the best horror movie of 2024, but it also stands out as one of the best horror sequels in recent years, improving upon all aspects that made the original a gigantic success. Through a thought-provoking exploration of trauma, loss, and guilt, the story’s rising emotional intensity elevates the fascinating horror elements, creating an unforgettable cinematic experience.
Naomi Scott’s career-best, riveting performance combines with technical qualities worthy of awards-season recognition, solidifying Parker Finn’s name as one of the most promising filmmakers in contemporary horror."
Rating: A-

Slasher fans are going to admire writer / director Chris Nash’s fresh and original, yet still traditional, take on the horror sub-genre with his sadistic film “In A Violent Nature.” With his distinct style and extremely unsettling movie, Nash subscribes to the Terrence Malik school of thought with a “less is more” approach, delivering a visually impactful and terrifying film that’s filled with violence, gore, and a brooding atmosphere that makes it feel wholly unique.
Johnny (Ry Barrett) is a vengeful spirit who is resurrected and ready to deliver payback after a horrific crime that occurred over 60 years ago. Johnny’s been brought back to life when a group of friends remove his treasured locket from his final resting place, a collapsed fire tower that lies deep in the woods. What follows is a methodical slaughter of the group that disturbed his locket, and it is clear that Johnny isn’t going to stop until every single one of them is dead.
Nash’s stylistic choices are so effective here, as he uses long shots of the back of the killer’s head to create a sense of dread without showing his face. He’s hulking and frightening, and being forced to imagine his appearance goes so far in conveying a stone-cold nature that leads to feral and brutal massacres.
Viewers are immersed and walking right alongside the murderer instead of the victims, creating a more penetrating, intimate, and less detached experience, a perspective that’s rarely explored in horror films. It’s disturbing, especially when you consider the killer’s lack of motivation. I was constantly asking “but why?,” and the randomness of his killing spree is what makes it so scary. Simply put, if you’re there, you’re dead.
The movie demands concentration and patience, but rewards viewers with a chilling, atmospheric experience. Heavily reliant on narrative-driven dialogue and visual imagery, the film is suspenseful and clever. Nash lets his camera observe with a detached yet intimate lens, savoring each bloody kill without being overly gratuitous. It’s the type of approach that will earn the respect of genre fans, delighting both horror lovers as well as artsy, hardcore slasher aficionados.
That’s not to say that there’s not a fair share of violence. The film features some truly gory and creative kills that are made even more horrific with Nash forcing audiences to watch the grisly brutality unfold. With zero humor to break the tension, this in-your-face experience is something that dedicated horror enthusiasts and those who savor the most macabre elements of the genre are going to love. The suspense is palpable, especially as the camera lingers on the kills in a way that makes them both artistic and heinous.
“In A Violent Nature” is classic slasher flick with a twist. It’s suspenseful, clever, and innovative in its storytelling.
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS

So guess what... A group of loud and brash twenty-somethings decide to take a weekend break in a remote cabin and manage to arouse the wrath of a long buried corpse who emerges and wreaks havoc on them and the poor old park ranger (Reece Presley). Sound familiar? That's probably because this hasn't an original bone in it's body and after about fifteen minutes I suspect you'll just think these kids actually deserve everything that "Johnny" can come up with. The victims are the usual mix of couples who are together, were together, want to be together; there's the obligatory couple of lesbians (though not for long) and way, way, too many meandering shots of the malevolent critter walking through the woods time and time again. There's some quite entertainingly graphic use of visual effects now and again as he makes good use of his chain, spike, hook and axe - but the big question is: can he be stopped before auteur Chris Nash starts thinking sequel? I suppose the moral of the story is - don't take things that don't belong to you; and maybe if this were shown in primary schools across the country, it might serve as an effective illustration of the risks of violating the seventh commandment. Mercifully, there's not much dialogue to speak of leaving us with a standard forest slasher that will be fine for wallpaper on the television after you've had a few pints.

The movie has an interesting premise, situated in a near-term future where AI androids got so competent that they are pervasive and displaced pretty much all human work force.
While the world-building is interesting and primarily focus on the lives in a family, where the husband inadvertently caused his domestic robot to unbalance her goals towards making him "calmer" and "happier" over everything else, it also brings deeper elements for a reflexion on the effects in the work force and society once robots start replacing humans in work activities.
However, the premise for a blockbuster could not compensate a weak screenplay, at first excessively slow, and in the later parts of the movie unrealistic. Also, excepted a few actors doing a good job as bots (including Megan Fox), the acting from the human characters is overall awful, especially Michele Morrone's. The bad acting and slow plot makes it hard to immerse in the movie and it feels longer than it really is.

It's a little less than what I hoped for. In the TV show (HUMANS) the lead female android was way better and more of an A.I than Meagan. Also I didn't feel the connection between Alice and Nick cos Alice was the one who came in too strong for Nick. Making her like a desperate side chick or "obsession"

"Subservience," directed by S.K. Dale, is a commendable entry in the Sci-Fi thriller genre.
Megan Fox's portrayal of an android is fabulous, bringing a captivating blend of stoicism and subtle emotion to her role. While the plot may come across as somewhat predictable and the story lacks a bit of depth, the film still manages to deliver an engaging experience. The emotional disconnect between the other actors and the audience is palpable, making it difficult to fully invest in their characters. Interestingly, this detachment actually works in favor of the narrative, leading viewers to root for the android.
Although the movie doesn't break new ground, it's a solid watch for fans of futuristic themes and the ever-evolving concept of artificial intelligence.

How is it a white Irish-American can speak better Spanish than the Spanish speakers in this train wreck?
And.... a musical with "penis" and "vagina" as the lyrics as it pushes gender transitions?
What we have is an insult to Spanish speakers, an insult that pushes the Latinx concept that most Latino's reject, and then pushes the they/them that lost Kamala the race... so of course it has 13 Academy Award nominations.
But the nominations don't mean it's any good. It's crap, it's a really bad movie and I feel horrible for the native Spanish speakers that this movie mocks and belittles.
But of course it's going to get a boatload of nominations, it's woke AF. So woke, it's another box office bomb.

Is _Emilia Pérez_ the riskiest movie in years?
A Spanish-language musical from a French director, about gendered violence and corruption, starring a transgender actress as a Mexican cartel boss who abandons his family, vanishes into hiding and transitions to become a woman.
It's A LOT. And yes, the film has drawn some criticism. But it’s obvious that the soul of _Emilia Pérez_ beats with the daring of a curious artist who prizes emotional authenticity above all else.
Could you give up your own family to live as your true self? How much can a person change at their core? Does the 'wolf' remain a wolf? While director Jacques Audiard doesn’t claim to have the answers, what’s clear is the film's unquestionable passion. _Emilia Pérez_ is a pure force; designed to grab us by the hearts and minds and wow us.
Read our full take on _Emilia Pérez_ at good.film: https://good.film/guide/why-emilia-perez-is-the-riskiest-movie-youve-seen-in-years

It generally takes tremendous courage to stand up and proclaim that the Emperor is indeed naked, especially in the face of a crowd of willfully blind onlookers who contend otherwise. Nevertheless, there are times when this truly needs to be said in light of an inexplicably misguided view to the contrary. And that’s certainly the case with the latest from often-overrated writer-director Jacques Audiard. This jumbled mess of a film can’t make up its mind if it wants to be an edgy musical (given its forgettable songs and original score), a quasi-campy comedy (despite its palpable lack of bona fide humor but with a narrative that’s admittedly frequently laughable), a crime thriller (one that feebly grows ever more pretentious, meandering, implausible and uncompelling with each passing frame) or a treatise on forgiveness and redemption that unapologetically drips with overwrought political correctness. In essence, this offering follows the exploits of Manitas (Karla Sofía Gascón), a Mexican drug cartel warlord who wants to undergo the transgender transition process to liberate the inner woman that has been inside him since birth, aided by a supposedly articulate and self-righteous lawyer (Zoe Saldaña) who hastily and seemingly thoughtlessly sells out with the promise of a financial windfall for her assistance. After undergoing the process, however, the newly emerged Emilia Pérez has regrets about her past, both in terms of her brutal “professional” behavior and the abandonment of her kids and shrewish, self-centered wife (a fine performance by Selena Gomez in one of the film’s few praiseworthy assets). However, this change of heart, while modestly understandable, generally lacks believability. And, given the utterly reprehensible nature and baffling, head-scratchingly contradictory choices of all the principals, it’s difficult to fathom how anyone would care a whit about any of them. That’s especially true for the picture’s lead, whose actions do little to generate any kind of meaningful empathy for transgender individuals and causes. And, through it all, the story is mystifyingly augmented with a slew of inconsistently timed, largely unremarkable musical production numbers that add precious little to the overall story (they could have been left out entirely and it would likely have made for a more compelling release). In sum, the finished product plays like a preposterously melodramatic Italian opera libretto mixed with elements from pictures like “Sicario” (2015) and any number of cheesy Mexican soap operas. How this cinematic morass has managed to garner as much attention as it has received is truly beyond me. That’s especially true with the many undeserved accolades it has received, including 10 Golden Globe Award nominations (a virtually unheard-of number for any film in this awards competition), as well as honors from the Critics Choice Awards, the American Film Institute, and numerous film festivals, including the prestigious events in Cannes and Toronto. Indeed, don’t be fooled into thinking that the blend of diverse elements here should be taken for inventive, inspired originality. But, more importantly, don’t waste your time on this celluloid trash, despite how allegedly elegant the Emperor’s outfits are said to be.

"Rita" (Zoe Saldana) is a lawyer in Mexico who finds her professionalism attracting the attention of the powerful drug lord "Manitas". He spends his time heavily guarded and constantly on the move as he pretty much controls the synthetic drug trade in and out of his country. What does he want with "Rita" though? Well tempted by a great deal of money, she makes the perilous trip to meet him and find out. Suffice to say she gets quite a shock when she discovers that he is determined to become a woman. "Rita" is now charged with the ultra-discrete task of finding a surgeon who can turn "Manitas" into "Emilia". Not only is this highly dangerous for the lawyer, but it's also no walk in the park for the gangster or his family who will need to be relocated and convinced that dad is no more. What now ensues tests the mettle of both characters, especially as the erstwhile father struggles rather more than he'd anticipated when it comes to losing his wife "Jessi" (Selena Gomez) and his two young children. Can he stay out of their lives for ever or might he succumb to that temptation and set the cat amongst the familial pigeons? The story is a bit too episodic and the characterisations superficial at times, which is a shame. That said, though, there is still a strong and emotionally powerful effort from Karla Sofía Gascón as the ruthlessly violent killer who undergoes more than a physical transformation over the four or five year period this drama covers. Saldana also holds this together well delivering an engaging performance as a character who has perhaps lost faith in what the system can do to make things better for ordinary people, so adopts a more "inside the tent of the enemy" approach. It's peppered with musical numbers. Some of those work better than others at introducing delicacy, love, lust and anger into the proceedings but let's be under no illusions that there are any great singers here. I found the denouement a bit rushed and frankly rather weak, but the whole film does shine rather a provocative light on attitudes to gender identification and just as importantly to corruption and the relatively minimal value placed on human life in country where someone almost always works for someone else. It's just a little over two hours, but once it gets into gear it doesn't hang around making for a decent watch tackling important topics that's worth a gander.

Good god like 45 minutes of the same guys fighting. There are some cool deaths but how many times can I see a guy get a khurki or whatever knife stuck in their shoulder before they die. Everyone fights at such randomly skilled levels depending on the scene. It's so fucking long and boring.

I always think trains make for a great confined, slightly claustrophobic, setting for a thriller and with the help of the very easy on the eye Lakshya proving he's pretty nimble with just about everything from a fire extinguisher to a bathroom sink, we set about trying to thwart the intentions of a group of thirty-odd bandits who board a train heading to Delhi and proceed to brutally rob the passengers. That was pretty much the gist of their plan until they discover that the wealthy "Baldeo" (Harsh Chhaya) is travelling with his family. Never mind scraping around for a few old iPhones and some costume jewellery, their enthusiastic young leader "Fani" (Raghav Juyal) decides to take them hostage. Now this is probably his biggest mistake as it turns out that the man's daughter "Tulika" (Tanya Maniktala) is the love of the life of our intrepid commando "Amrit", and when events unfold becoming more violent, and tragic, this unleashes in him a feverish desire for retribution that proves the training at the National Commando School of India is extremely effective. With his colleague "Viresh" (Abhishek Chauhan) travelling with him, and with the help of one or two courageous passengers, the two soldiers are hopelessly outnumbered, but hugely inventive. This isn't a film you go to see for the dialogue - there isn't really very much, and what there is doesn't really matter. This is simply an end to end, action-packed festival of acrobatic carnage that isn't necessarily the most realistic - I think in real life, everyone would have been dead from the deadly kukri blows far earlier, but Nikhil Nagesh Bhat allows the film to build the tension to quite a crescendo. Sure, some of the combat scenes are a little too choreographed and repetitive, and I doubt it would ever encourage you to want to travel on Indian Railways, but this is every inch as good as it's Hollywood equivalents. Be warned - the violence is about as graphic as it gets, but I enjoyed it and wouldn't be surprised if Lakshya starts to appear in more films targeted more at the West.

#MovieReview #AfraidMovie #AfraidFilm #Afraid2024
In the upcoming 2024 thriller "Afraid," produced by Jason Blum, viewers are in for a terrifying ride that delves into the dark side of our technologically advanced world. Unlike the typical horror flick featuring iconic villains like Freddy, Jason, or Michael, this movie presents a more realistic and chilling scenario.
The storyline follows a family experimenting with a revolutionary AI product that has the power to manipulate various aspects of their lives. From altering videos to concealing information online, the film showcases the extent to which this advanced technology can control everything from personal devices to daily routines.
As the plot unfolds, it becomes evident how easily AI can influence our decisions, relationships, and even our sense of reality. The film's portrayal of a society increasingly reliant on technology serves as a stark reminder of the potential dangers lurking in our digital age.
Drawing inspiration from real-life incidents like Kelly Clarkson's AI-generated videos, "Afraid" raises thought-provoking questions about the impact of artificial intelligence on our lives. The suspenseful narrative is punctuated with unexpected jump scares that will keep viewers on the edge of their seats until the shocking conclusion.
In just over an hour and a half, "Afraid" manages to capture the essence of a world where technology reigns supreme, leaving audiences to ponder the lingering question: is AI truly ever gone? Prepare to be captivated, frightened, and ultimately left questioning the future that awaits us in this compelling and timely thriller. 

John Cho was clearly a bit desperate to get off the starship "Enterprise" so took on the mantle of the dad "Curtis" in this predictable and derivative sci-fi yarn. He's happily married to "Meredith" (Katherine Waterston); they have three kids and he's in the advertising business. When his business is offered a fortune by an AI company to support their new at-home assistant "AIA", he finds his family are now the chief guinea pigs on the user-testing front. What now ensues sees the family's hitherto peaceable existence thrown into exaggerated turmoil by this gadget that ostensibly wants to help each of them out, but that does - of course - merely highlight plenty of the demons and issues that each is facing or has suppressed over the years. In some ways the plot does focus on the encroachment of technology in our lives and as "Curtis" himself asks, at what point will we ever be satisfied with the level of involvement it has in our existence before we call a halt to continued "enhancements", but those philosophical moments are few and far between as this short-ish drama follows an oft-travelled path that is short on scares and long on the been there, seen that. None of the acting is worth writing home about, nor is the screenplay and it's initially quite menacing premiss is swiftly reduced to something episodic that just makes me wonder how long we'll have to wait for "AfrAId II" or "Still AfrAId?". It's adequate TV fodder for the winter, but otherwise little better than an weakly adapted short story that fits perfectly into the mediocrity of the Blumhouse churn-factory.

**_Colorful, eccentric, intellectually heavy and full of pizazz, but not for the masses_**
A brilliant architect (Adam Driver) is determined to recreate a core section of New Rome in the later 21st century with a revolutionary bio-adaptive material called Megalon. But the new mayor resists these creative plans because he’s content with the way things are (Giancarlo Esposito). As such, the mayor’s not happy when his daughter (Nathalie Emmanuel) starts to develop a relationship with the prodigy. Shia LaBeouf plays a decadent troublemaker while Aubrey Plaza appears as a scheming TV presenter drawn to the financial backbone of the city (Jon Voight).
Francis Ford Coppola first came up with the idea for “Megalopolis” in 1977. It was inspired by Lucius Sergius Catiline’s failed attempt to take control of the Roman republic in 63 BC, but lost to his rival Marcus Tullius Cicero. Even though Francis compiled hundreds of pages of notes and script fragments for the project in early 1983, the first serious attempt to go forward with making the movie was in 2001-2002, but the production eventually froze for various reasons, including the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
When Coppola turned 80, he decided to throw caution to the wind and finally make the film, financing it himself at a cost of $120 million, with shooting taking place between November and March, 2022-2023. So, is it any good? Some critics call it a “big mess,” but the plot is actually simple, as detailed above. It’s Francis’ artsy style that throws people off wherein he respects the intelligence of the viewer to put the pieces together. This approach was evident in his previous pictures, like “One From the Heart,” “Rumble Fish,” “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” “Youth Without Youth” and “Twixt” (aka “B-Twixt Now and Sunrise”). Speaking of those flicks, if you liked any of them, or hated ’em, this is cut from the same artistic cloth.
As observed with “Tucker: The Man and His Dream,” “Tetro” and even “Apocalypse Now” (the character of Kurtz), Coppola likes to parallel aspects of his own life in his movies. Here, he’s Cicero (Driver), an award-winning genius who has an ambitious new project that will revolutionize the landscape if carried out, but those in power oppose his noble efforts. He’s constantly slandered or framed with his indiscretions not helping matters. He’s also troubled by the death of his wife and his unborn children (remember the tragedy of Francis’ eldest son, Gian-Carlo, in 1986?). Yet he presses on with his vision and ultimately changes the world with his art.
At the end of the day, the movie’s entertaining on several fronts and stuffed with quality mindfood, not to mention it has a welcome warmhearted close. I busted out laughing on several occasions in light of the creative madness of it all. For those who say the amusement was “unintentional,” I guess they never saw Coppola’s previous film “Twixt,” not to mention earlier ones like “You’re a Big Boy Now.”
I see the city of Megalopolis as a type of the New Jerusalem in the Bible, the eternal city described in Revelation 21-22 (awesome streets of gold and all that). "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life" and so the impenitent in the movie reap the wages of their transgressions whereas those who change their minds/thinking/actions (that is, they repent) are able to enjoy the benefits of the amazing new city.
If you value it, this is a flick you’ll be able to go back to for gems missed on previous viewings.
It runs 2 hour, 18 minutes, and was shot in Manhattan and Trilith Studios, Atlanta.
GRADE: B+/A-

So imagine that the Roman Empire survived the turbulent treacheries of the original Caesars and made it to third millennium. (New) Rome has miraculously relocated to the United States (of course the greatest country the world has ever known) and the city is run by mayor "Cicero" (Giancarlo Esposito). He's not without his detractors, though, and one of them is the ambitious "Cesar" (Adam Driver) who has ambitions to reinvent their city, Nero-style, by demolishing the run down slums and replacing them with an idealistic utopia constructed of his new, eternally lasting, "Megalon". The city's vested interests are lined up against this young man though, all except the mayor's daughter "Julia" (Nathalie Emmanuel) who has taken a bit of a shine to the ambitious "Cesar" - and that's much to the chagrin of his previous squeeze "Wow" (Aubrey Plaza) who decides that she will seek some vengeance by marrying the enormously wealthy, and aged, "Crassus" (Jon Voight). Add to this already rather cluttered mix, the personality of "Clodio" (Shia LaBoeuf) who is determined to bring down "Cesar" and see himself in public office - and inherit the "Crassus" fortune, and we have the makings of an internecine intrigue that ought to have made Suetonius and Machiavelli blush. Instead, well, we get a rambling drama that hasn't a clue where it's going - nor for whom it is for. It tries to mix a bit of the ancient Shakespeare (and Marcus Aurelius) into the dialogue to lend some gravitas and sense of history to the plot, but for the most part this is just a confused mess of a film. It's a toss up between LaBeouf as the the over-the-top, hammy, "Clodius" and Voight's doddery old gazillionaire as to who takes what acting plaudits there might be here, but the rest of the cast look like fish out of (CGI) water and though the production makes the odd to nod to cinema history - there's a tiny bit of Fritz Lang here, I though - the rest of this comes across as an ill-inspired vanity project for Francis Ford Coppola that can't decide if it's "Romeo & Juliet" or "Spartacus" and in the end doesn't deliver the potency, emotion, intensity or humour of either. It is a good looking film and the production designers have imaginatively created a city-scape that is ripe for the story, it's just that the story isn't ripe for the audience. It does need to be seen on a big screen, but be prepared to be underwhelmed as it starts strongly then simply peters out into a wordy melodrama with a few clumsily delivered messages about the nature of greed and the fecklessness of humanity lightly woven into the weak storyline. Beware, it ends tentatively enough to scream sequel at us, too!