Movies Reviews

Insidious Chapter 3 (2015)

A unsatisfying sequel that manages some world-building, however extremely must build designer Shaye the put concentration of the series.

Despite in operation within the oversaturated horror subgenre of supernatural possession, the primary 2 Insidious movies shocked audiences due to their level of invention. From the depths of the shadowy, fog-filled The any, to advanced levels of stellar projection -- to even to a small degree of cool time shifting -- the films have managed to place attention-grabbing twists on rather customary supernatural haunting/possession stories. Going into the actress Whannell-directed Insidious Chapter three, one would possibly hope that the sequel would advance this space, adding its own new levels of originality to the combo. Sadly, the newest sequel not solely fails during this department, however conjointly doesn’t have enough substantial or attention-grabbing scares to create up the distinction.

Both written and directed by Whannell (making his directorial debut), Insidious Chapter three takes a detour aloof from the action within the initial picture show and may be a prequel set a couple of years before the primary 2 movies. The story centers on a sensible jeune fille named Quinn Brenner (Stefanie Scott) World Health Organization is in a very state of grief thanks to the recent passing of her mother, and desires the chance to speak together with her one last time. Despite receiving warnings from the psychic Elise Rainier (Lin Shaye) regarding the risks of reaching resolute her mater, the tortured teenage makes an attempt to try to to thus, anyway, and lands up gap doors that undoubtedly ought to have stayed shut. associate degree accident leaves Quinn infirm and below the care of her widowman father (Dermot Mulroney). however this can be the smallest amount of her issues, as her nights ar infested with demons doing their best to urge at her soul.

If you're thinking that that appears like the essential found out for each bland supernatural possession picture show you’ve seen within the last 5 years, you have already got {a very|a extremely|a awfully} smart plan of what to expect from Insidious Chapter three - however what’s really unfortunate regarding the film is that it puts a spotlight on a generic story whereas holding a additional original one operate as a B-plot. whereas Quinn gets the majority of the screen time within the picture show, the $64000 star of the show is designer Shaye’s revenge of Elise, World Health Organization licitly becomes a deeper and additional attention-grabbing character through the film’s proceedings. There’s associate degree honest bid by Whannell to do and have her be a part of the ranks of Dr. prophet Loomis and Van Helsing united of horror’s additional unforgettable monster fighters. The new sequel really provides her a full arc - armed with a peek into her home life and to a small degree of non-public backstory involving a deceased husband - and parts really build her half within the last 2 movies stronger on reflection (which are a few things several prequels try and do and fail). All of this can be simply additional, though, rather than the film’s central focus, because the writer/director didn’t have the foresight to shift things aloof from the uninspired haunted-family found out.

As it is within the horror genre, this wouldn’t matter such a lot if Insidious Chapter three were piss-your-pants/curl-up-in-a-ball alarming, however it’s not. actress Whannell and photographer Brian Pearson do a decent job making an attempt to match the palette and atmosphere established by director James Wan and John Leonetti within the initial 2 movies, however what doesn’t synchronise up is that the approach to the horrifying moments. the simplest scares within the franchise to the present purpose – the foremost notable being within the initial picture show – created a solid sense of dread as a result of several of the moments needed the audience to just accept the normalcy of a given house solely to be afraid once they notice the horror that's lurking within the corner. Whannell’s approach isn’t as delicate, and instead for the most part depends on jump scares – that ar smart for a jolt, however ar ultimately dissatisfactory. To the movie’s credit, there ar bound sequences that do give to a small degree of a chill – most notably associate degree living accommodations hall sequence clearly meant as associate degree respect to The Shining – however there’s nothing that’s progressing to provide you with lasting nightmares.

The world-building that’s accomplished at intervals Insidious Chapter three suggests that the story isn’t quite over with this entry into the series, and whereas its immediate forerunner didn’t extremely live up to the initial either, the new film still looks like a disappointment regardless. There weirdly continues to be area to explore at intervals this franchise – particularly if the filmmakers will realize the way to create Elise the lead character she ought to be – however Chapter three doesn’t add enough to the massive image, and overall feels misguided.

Another humourous giving from the ribald couple of director Paul Feig and his audacious muse, Melissa McCarthy.

Spy is that the funniest issue to happen to the spying genre since capital of Texas Powers: International Man of Mystery. Like electro-acoustic transducer Myers’ surreal and goofy hit, Spy has associate impeccable understanding of however a emissary story is meant to unfold, and it follows the expected beats… for the foremost half. however Spy systematically holds its material up to the sunshine and approaches it from new angles, curious what are often funny a few genre that sometimes takes itself manner too seriously.

The result\'s another humourous giving from the ribald couple of director Paul Feig and his audacious muse, Melissa McCarthy. What sets Spy aside from like entries within the spy-comedy genre – movies like Red (and its sequel) or this winter’s Kingsman: the key Service -- is that Feig ne\'er pretends he isn’t creating a straight-up comedy, and laughs by design trump thrills in each single scene. As they must.

Melissa McCarthy manages one thing completely different in Spy, similarly – one thing I haven’t seen in any of her on-screen personas. She’s sympathetic. At least, initially. The typically brash and short-fused comedian plays Susan Cooper, a excusatory CIA table jockey UN agency mostly supervises field agent Bradley Fine (Jude Law), the textbook 007 clone. however once Fine is compromised throughout associate hugger-mugger mission, Susan rises to the challenge of a rescue mission and enters the fray… tho\' not before CIA colleagues like Rick Ford (Jason Statham) specific their extreme dissatisfaction. Nay, disgust. Susan isn’t a spy, in their mind, and he or she has no business attempting to infiltrate their hugger-mugger world. She’s associate nonstarter during a world stuffed with alpha dogs.

Is that code for the male-chauvinist Hollywood studio system balky at yet one more Feig-McCarthy vehicle ploughing through their toy-driven tentpole season? perhaps you\'ll scan it that manner, however Spy extremely isn’t attempting to hit United States over the pinnacle with any deep message. It’s here to entertain, and you\'re reaching to celebrate as Feig puts McCarthy through a marathon of uncomfortably humourous physical jokes. If you caught the warmth or Bridesmaids, you recognize that McCarthy’s up for any potential Feig punchline – simply raise the poor sink that she shat in because the food-poisoned Megan within the director’s 2011 comedy.

Feig has tried he will write for McCarthy – and he or she is aware of however best to deliver his lines. What Spy unveil is that the director’s ability to surround his lead with a military of colourful allies and adversaries, and everybody rises to new levels of absurdity. Law wrings laughs out of his suave and complex behaviour. Statham surprises by creating the foremost of his inelegance. Miranda Hart – a Britain comedian with fine dry temporal order – truly overshadows McCarthy in varied scenes by enjoying Susan’s mousy succor. It’s hysterically meta to observe however Hart makes fun of the straightness of the spy formula, whereas additionally collaborating in it. I’ve saved Rose Byrne for last, as a result of the words required to explain her cartoonishly evil Rayna Boyanov escape ME. Like Hart, Byrne plays her Spy character as if she is aware of that she’s during a spoof comedy. None of it’s real, and she’s truly quite bored by it all, beggary for somebody to have interaction her. Yet, by enjoying upstage, Byrne brings United States more in. Really, Spy gets smarter the a lot of that i feel regarding it.

The only issue regarding Spy is that it runs out of steam over the course of its 2-hour run time, and every one of the items that you just assume square measure funny lose that clock in the agitated finale. In all, though, Spy delivers a very funny riff on a spoofable film genre, and chalks up another solid endeavor for the team that’s getting ready to tackle Ghostbusters for a replacement generation.
Trailer :

"Snow White and the Huntsman" reinvents the legendary story in a film of astonishing beauty and imagination. It's the last thing you would expect from a picture with this title. It falters in its storytelling, because Snow White must be entirely good, the Queen must be entirely bad, and there's no room for nuance. The end is therefore predetermined. But, oh, what a ride.
This is an older Snow White than we usually think of. Played for most of the film by Kristen Stewart, capable and plucky, she has spent long years locked in a room of her late father's castle, imprisoned by his cruel second wife (Charlize Theron). When she escapes and sets about righting wrongs, she is a mature young woman, of interest to the two young men who join in her mission. But the movie sidesteps scenes of romance, and in a way, I suppose that's wise.

The Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) is a heroic, mead-guzzling hunter assigned by the Queen to track down Snow White and bring her back to the castle. After encountering her, however, he is so impressed he changes sides. There is also Prince William (Sam Claflin), smitten since childhood, and the two men join in an unstated alliance.

The Queen lives in terror of losing the beauty of her youth and constantly tops up with the blood of virgins to restore it. She tests her success with the proverbial mirror on the wall, which melts into molten metal and assumes a spectral form, not unlike Death in "The Seventh Seal," although its metallic transformation process reminds us of "The Terminator."

The castle, which sits in eerie splendor on an island joined to the mainland only at low tide, is a gothic fantasy that reminds me of the Ghormenghast series. The Queen is joined there by her brother, somewhat diminished by his blond page-boy haircut, who does her bidding but seems rather out to lunch. Extras appear when needed, then disappear. The Queen commands extraordinary supernatural powers, including the ability to materialize countless black birds that can morph into fighting demons or shards of cutting metal.

All of this is rendered appropriately by the special effects, but the treasure of this film is in two of its locations: a harsh, forbidding Dark Forest, and an enchanted fairyland. Both of these realms exist near the castle, and the Huntsman is enlisted in the first place because he knows the Dark Forest, where Snow White has taken refuge.

In this forbidding realm, nothing lives, and it is thick with the blackened bones of dead trees, as if a forest fire had burned only the greenery. There is no cheer here and a monstrous troll confronts Snow White in a dramatic stare-down. After the Huntsman frees her from the Dark Forest, they are delighted to find, or be found by, the Eight Dwarves.

Yes, eight, although one doesn't survive, reducing their number to the proverbial seven. These characters look strangely familiar, and no wonder: The magic of CGI has provided the faces of familiar British actors such as Ian Mcshane, Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, Nick Frost, Eddie Marsan and Toby Jones. While this technique is effective, it nevertheless deprives eight working (real) dwarves with jobs, which isn't really fair.

The dwarves lead them to my favorite realm in the film, an enchanting fairyland, which is a triumph of art direction and CGI. Mushrooms open their eyes and regard the visitors. Cute forest animals scamper and gambol in tribute to a forest scene in Disney's 1937 animated film. The fairies themselves are naked, pale-skinned sprites with old, wise faces. The spirit of this forest is embodied by a great white stag with expressive eyes and horns that spread in awesome complexity. This is a wonderful scene. The director, Rupert Sanders, who began in TV commercials, is clearly familiar with establishing memorable places.

As for the rest, there is a sufficiency of medieval battle scenes, too many for my taste, and a fairly exciting siege of the castle, aided by the intervention of the dwarves, and featuring catapults that hurl globes of burning tar — always enjoyable.

There is a great film here somewhere, perhaps one that allowed greater complexity for the characters. But considering that I walked in expecting no complexity at all, let alone the visual wonderments, "Snow White and the Huntsman" is a considerable experience.

Play the trailer :

Buy From Here

"Rango" is some kind of a miracle: An animated comedy for smart moviegoers, wonderfully made, great to look at, wickedly satirical, and (gasp!) filmed in glorious 2-D. Its brilliant colors and startling characters spring from the screen and remind us how very, very tired we are of simpleminded little characters bouncing around dimly in 3-D.
This is an inspired comic Western, deserving comparison with "Blazing Saddless," from which it borrows a lot of farts. The more movies you've seen, the more you may like it; it even enlists big bats to lampoon the helicopter attack in "Apocalypse Now." But let's say you haven't seen lots of movies. Let's say you're a kid. "Rango" may surprise you because it's an animated film that plays like a real movie and really gets you involved.

The title character is a lizard, voiced by Johnny Depp. Just an ordinary lizard. You know, green and with scales and popeyes. But to this humble reptile comes the responsibility to bring civilization to Dirt, an untamed Western town tormented by villains and running desperately short on water.

The other characters are outsize versions of basic Western types. There is, for example, Rattlesnake Jake (Bill Nighy), the bad man whose gang holds the town in a grip of terror. After Rango accidentally kills the eagle that has been dining on Dirt's citizens, he is persuaded by the mayor (Ned Beatty) to wear the sheriff's badge and bring law to Dirt. This involves tough talk in saloons, face-downs on Main Street and a chase sequence between high canyon walls that's a nod in the direction of "Star Wars."

"Rango" loves Westerns. Beneath its comic level is a sound foundation based on innumerable classic Westerns, in which (a) the new man arrives in town, (2) he confronts the local villain, and (3) he faces a test of his heroism. Dirt has not only snakes but vultures to contend with, so Rango's hands are full. And then there's the matter of the water crisis. For some reason, reaching back to the ancient tradition of cartoons about people crawling through the desert, thirst is always a successful subject for animation.

The movie is wonderfully well-drawn. The characters are wildly exaggerated, yes, but with an underlay of detail and loving care. The movie respects the tradition of painstakingly drawn animated classics, and does interesting things with space and perspective with its wild action sequences. The director is Gore Verbinski, who directed Johnny Depp in three of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies. I think he benefits here from the clarity of animation drawings, as compared to the tendency of the "Pirates" films to get lost in frenzies of CGI. Yes, animation is also computer-generated imagery these days, but it begins with artists and drawings and paintings and a clearly seen world.

The movie is rated PG. I hope it will be huge at the box office. Godard said that the way to criticize a movie is to make another movie. "Rango" is a splendid and great-looking entertainment with a strong story, limitless energy and a first-rate voice cast, also including Abigail Breslin, Ned Beatty as the disabled mayor, Alfred Molina, Bill Nighy, Stephen Root, Timothy Olyphant, Ray Winstone, and, yes,Harry Dean Stanton. No,Sam Elliott, but you can't have everyone.

Here's what I hope: Lots of families will see this. They won't have a single thought about its being in 2-D. They will pay ordinary ticket prices. They will love the bright colors and magnificent use of space. In a few weeks, they'll go to a 3-D movie and wonder, why did we have to pay extra for this?

Movie Trailer

Buy From Here

"Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is without a doubt the best film we are ever likely to see on the subject — unless there is a sequel, which is unlikely, because at the end, the Lincolns are on their way to the theater. It's also a more entertaining movie than I remotely expected. Yes, Reader, I went expecting to sneer.
The story opens with young Abe witnessing the murder of his mother by a vampire. He swears vengeance, and some years later is lucky to be getting drunk while standing at a bar next to Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper), who coaches him on vampire-killing and explains that it is a high calling, requiring great dedication and avoiding distractions like marriage.

There's an early scene in which Lincoln tries to shoot a vampire, but that won't work because they're already dead. Then whatever can he do? "Well," he tells Henry, "I used to be pretty good at rail-splitting…" This line drew only a few chuckles from the audience, because the movie cautiously avoids any attempt to seem funny.
Lincoln's weapon of choice becomes an axe with a silver blade, which he learns to spin like a drum major's baton. That he carries this ax with him much of the time may strike some as peculiar. I was reminded uncannily of Buford Pusser, walking tall and carrying a big stick.

Against Henry's advice, Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) marries Mary Todd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and the story moves quickly to his days in the White House, where he discovers that the vampires are fighting on the side of the South. This seems odd, since they should be equal opportunity bloodsuckers, but there you have it. Still with him from is childhood friend Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie), a free black man whose mistreatment helped form Lincoln's hatred of slavery. Also still at his side is Joshua Speed (Jimmi Simpson), who hired him in his Springfield general store; Johnson and Speed join Lincoln in Civil War strategy sessions and are his principal advisers, roles overlooked by history.

The film, directed by Timur Bekmambetov and written by Seth Grahame-Smith, based on his novel, handles all these matters with an admirable seriousness, which may be the only way they could possibly work. The performances are earnest and sincere, and even villains like Adam (Rufus Sewell), the American leader of the Vampire Nation, doesn't spit or snarl overmuch. It regrettably introduces but does not explain Vadoma (Erin Wasson), a statuesque woman who is several decades ahead of time in her taste for leather fetish wear. Are vampires kinky? I didn't know.

Although we do not attend "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" in search of a history lesson, there's one glitch I cannot overlook. In the first day of fighting at Gettysburg, the Union sustains a defeat so crushing that Lincoln is tempted to surrender. This is because the Confederate troops, all vampires, are invulnerable to lead bullets, cannon fire and steel blades, and have an alarming way of disappearing and rematerializing. Over breakfast, Lincoln confides his despair to his wife and says conventional weapons are of no more use against them than — why — than this fork! As he stares at it, he realizes it is silver, and vampires can be killed by silver weapons, as he has proved with his axe-twirling.

Now try not to focus too much on the timeline. After his realization, Lincoln mobilizes all resources to gather wagonloads of silver in Washington, smelt it, and manufacture silver bayonets, bullets and cannon balls. Then we see him, Johnson and Speed on board a weapons train en route to Gettysburg. It is night again, so apparently all of this took less than a day.

Never mind. What comes now is a genuinely thrilling action sequence in which the vampires battle with Lincoln and his friends on top of the speeding train, which hurtles toward a high wooden bridge that has been set alight by the sinister Vadoma (pronounced "Vadooma," I think). This sequence is preposterous and yet exciting, using skillful editing and special effects. Somehow Benjamin Walker and his co-stars here are even convincing — well, as convincing as such goofiness could possibly be.

"Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" has nothing useful to observe about Abraham Lincoln, slavery, the Civil War or much of anything else. Blink and you may miss the detail that Harriet Tubman's Underground Railway essentially won the war for the North. But the film doesn't promise insights on such subjects. What it achieves is a surprisingly good job of doing justice to its title, and treating Lincoln with as much gravity as we can expect, under the circumstances.

Movie trailer

Buy From Here

"Paranormal Activity 2" is an efficient delivery system for Gotcha! Moments, of which it has about 19. Audiences who want to be Gotchaed will enjoy it. A Gotcha! Moment is a moment when something is sudden, loud and scary. This can be as basic as the old It's Only a Cat cliché, or as abrupt as a character being hit by a bus.
PA2 starts slyly with pre-Gotcha! teasers, such as a door or a child's toy moving on its own. Then there are obscure off-screen rumbles, like a uneasy stomach. Then loud bangs. Then loud bangs with visible causes. Then all the doors in a room banging open at once. And eventually…well, you can see for yourself, because all the activity is captured by 24-hour security cameras.

The cameras, which function perfectly but never capture the Presence on the screen. For the house is indeed haunted by a ghost-like supernatural presence, I guess. I say "I guess" because there is a scene of a victim being dragged downstairs, and the entity doing the dragging is invisible. On the other hand, the movie ends with a strong suggestion that the malefactor was in fact a living human being. So would that be cheating? Hell yes.

But who cares? People go to "Paranormal Activity 2" with fond memories of the original film, which was low-tech and clever in the way it teased our eyes and expectations. It scared them. They want to be scared again. They will be. When there's a loud unexpected bang it will scare you. The structural task of the Gotcha! Movie is to separate the bangs so they continue to be unexpected.

Any form of separation will do. The characters include the Sloats (Micah Sloat and Katie Featherston), who are back from the first movie. But this story takes place in the home of her sister Kristi (Sprague Grayden), her husband, Daniel (Brian Boland), teenage daughter Ali (Molly Ephraim), brand new baby Hunter, and his nanny, Martine (Vivis). Martine is ethnic, and we know what that means: She has an instinctive knowledge of ghosts, breaks out the magic incense at a moment's notice, and can't get anyone to listen to her.

There are six speaking roles, not counting the non-speaking baby and the dog. Good odds, you'd think, that at least one of them would have something interesting to say, but no. The movie isn't about them. They function primarily as Gotcha! separators, going through vacuous social motions between Gotchas! They are not real swift. The movie numbers the days as they tick away, and along about Day #12 I'm thinking, why are these people still here? The screening I attended was treated to a surprise appearance by three stars of that cable show about Chicago's Paranormal Detectives. These are real Chicago detectives. If the Sloats lived in Chicago, they'd have a SWAT team out there by Day #7.

The movie is presented as a documentary with no set-up, unless the first movie was the set up. It begins with little Hunter being brought home, and then we get titles like "Day #3." Of what? One peculiar title says "Nine days before the death of Micah Sloat." I probably have the number of days wrong, but you get the idea. What are we supposed to do with this information? I guess we should think, "Sloat, you poor bastard, you only have nine days to go." This knowledge is about as useful as the farmer who tells you to make a left turn five miles before you get to the barn. There are also titles saying things like "1:41:15 a.m.," as if we care.

The character who suffers the most is poor little Hunter. Something is always bothering him in the middle of the night. When a security camera is on the staircase, we hear his plaintive little wail. When it's focused on his bedroom, he's standing up in his wee crib and bawling. The dog is always there barking at something, because dogs, like ethnic nannies, Know About These Things. Hunter screams and screams in the movie. If you were Hunter's parents and your house was haunted, wouldn't you move the poor kid's crib into the bedroom?

My audience jumped a lot and screamed a lot, and then laughed at themselves, even after one event that wasn't really funny. Then they explained things to one another, and I could overhear useful lines like, "She got the $#!+ scared outta her!" I understand they attended in hopes of seeing Gotchas! and explaining them to one another. I don't have a problem with "Paranormal Activity 2." It delivers what it promises, and occupies its audiences. Win-win.

Movie Trailer :

Buy From Here

You're not going to see this one coming. You might think you do, because the TV ads and shots at the top reveal what looks like the big surprise — and it certainly comes as a surprise to the characters. But let's just say there's a lot more to it than that.
"The Cabin in the Woods" sets off with an ancient and familiar story plan. Five college students pile into a van and drive deep into the woods for a weekend in a borrowed cabin. Their last stop is of course a decrepit gas station populated by a demented creep who giggles at the fate in store for them. (In these days when movies are sliced and diced for YouTube mash-ups, I'd love to see a montage of demented redneck gas station owners drooling and chortling over the latest carloads of victims heading into the woods.)

It will seem that I'm revealing a secret by mentioning that this is no ordinary cabin in the woods, but actually a set for a diabolical scientific experiment. Beneath the cabin is a basement, and beneath that is a vast modern laboratory headed by technology geeks (Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford) who turn dials, adjust levers and monitor every second on a bank of TV monitors. Their scheme is to offer the five guinea pigs a series of choices, which will reveal — something, I'm not sure precisely what. There is some possibility that this expensive experiment is involved with national security, and we get scenes showing similar victims in scenarios around the world.

Now in your standard horror film, that would be enough: OMG! The cabin is being controlled by a secret underground laboratory! Believe me, that's only the beginning. The film has been produced and co-written by Joss Whedon (creator of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Angel" and other iconic TV shows) and directed by his longtime collaborator Drew Goddard (writer of "Cloverfield"). Whedon has described it as a "loving hate letter" to horror movies, and you could interpret it as an experiment on the genre itself: It features five standard-issue characters in your basic cabin in the woods, and we can read the lab scientists as directors and writers who are plugging in various story devices to see what the characters will do. In some sense, the Jenkins and Whitford characters represent Whedon and Goddard.

Ah, but they don't let us off that easily. That's what I mean when I say you won't see the end coming. This is not a perfect movie; it's so ragged, it's practically constructed of loose ends. But it's exciting because it ventures so far off the map. One imagines the filmmakers chortling with glee as they devise first one bizarre development and then another in a free-for-all for their imaginations. They establish rules only to violate them.

That begins with the characters. They're stock archetypes. We get an action hero (Curt, played by Chris Hemsworth); a good girl (Dana, played by Kristen Connolly); a bad girl (Jules, played by Anna Hutchison); the comic relief (Marty the pothead, played by Fran Kranz), and the mature and thoughtful kid (Holden, played by Jesse Williams). What the scientists apparently intend to do is see how each archetype plays out after the group is offered various choices. There are even side bets in the lab about who will do what — as if they're predicting which lever the lab rats will push.

This is essentially an attempt to codify free will. Do horror characters make choices because of the requirements of the genre, or because of their own decisions? And since they're entirely the instruments of their creators, to what degree can the filmmakers exercise free will? This is fairly bold stuff, and it grows wilder as the film moves along. The opening scenes do a good job of building conventional suspense; the middle scenes allow deeper alarm to creep in, and by the end, we realize we're playthings of sinister forces.

Horror fans are a particular breed. They analyze films with such detail and expertise that I am reminded of the Canadian literary critic Northrup Frye, who approached literature with similar archetypal analysis. "The Cabin in the Woods" has been constructed almost as a puzzle for horror fans to solve. Which conventions are being toyed with? Which authors and films are being referred to? Is the film itself an act of criticism?

With most genre films, we ask, "Does it work?" In other words, does this horror film scare us? "The Cabin in the Woods" does have some genuine scares, but they're not really the point. This is like a final exam for fanboys.
This is the movie trailer :

Buy From Here

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted

Here is a family movie from which absolutely nothing is expected, and yet it's one of the week's best releases: a muscular, potent and very funny film. It's the animated threequel from the DreamWorks studio about those wacky animals once resident in New York's fictional Central Park Zoo, who are now struggling to make their way back from Africa to America via, of all places, Monte Carlo. Not an obvious stopover.

Ben Stiller voices Alex the lion, Chris Rock is Marty the zebra, David Schwimmer is Melman the giraffe and Jada Pinkett Smith is Gloria the hippo. Sacha Baron Cohen returns as bizarre King Julien, the ring-tailed lemur. Madagascar 3 isn't getting the saucer-eyed notices handed out to, say, Tim Burton's latest film. It isn't considered as important. But to quote Kingsley Amis's famous dictum: importance isn't important, good writing is – or in this case, good film-making.

In its unassuming and unpretentious way, this is tremendous entertainment, bursting with colour and light and energy, and a great script from Eric Darnell and Noah Baumbach.

The new adventure begins when the quartet hide out in a travelling circus, dominated by an eastern European tiger called Vitaly (Bryan Cranston), who once had a bizarre act that involved jumping through an impossibly small hoop while slicked with olive oil. The whole film is very slick, and very enjoyable.
Movie Trailer:

Buy From Here

Labels

Sponsor

Insidious Chapter 3 (2015)

SPY Movie (2015)

Snow White And The Huntsman

Rango

Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter

Paranormal Activity 2

The Cabin In The Woods

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted

Download

Post of the week

Find us on facebook

Partners