What a great cast! Manoj Bajpayee and Tabu! You do not want to remember their earlier films together which were nothing but disastrous: Gaath and Dil Pe Mat le Yaar (both released in the year 2000). Unfortunately, this time too the duo simply fails to deliver.

How they ham! Sushant Dubey (Manoj Bajpayee) tries really hard to be sleazy to the receptionist at the hotel, staring at her cleavage. He just does such a terrible job of it, and looks uncomfortable saying things like, 'My wife and daughter will leave in the morning, do you think I will need a single room?'

Aparna Dubey (Tabu) is made to carry a blanket stuffed with pillows that does not remotely look like a child. Effort from the production team is zilch. Movies of the seventies and eighties made more effort when they showed bodies going over a cliff than shown here. Missing Review - Hindi Movie Missing Review that there is no child.

You don't even wish to groan about very obvious inaccuracies: the child is three years old, and Tabu is carrying baby diapers for her, and you are alarmed at the pills! Most pediatricians prescribe syrups to babies and toddlers and not pills!

There is a brief moment where you are forced to watch a love-making scene between the Dubeys and you know they are unhappy doing what they are made to do. Thankfully their roll in the bed is fuzzed out of focus.

The child is missing by the morning. We discover many things about Sushant and Tabu and how they met. What you don't understand are Tabu's motives for anything she does and Sushant's either. If your met someone, and they carried a chopper in a baby's diaper bag, you would put as much distance between you as it was possible, no? Maybe that is the mystery.

Alas, it is for Inspector Buddhu (Annu Kapoor who was last seen hamming it in Baaa Baa Black Sheep) and his Tweedledee and Tweedledum cop duo assistants who have to solve the mystery of the missing kid. Their supposed Shenanigans are so tedious, you are too exhausted to ask the writer director how he managed to sell such tiresomeness to the production house?

Perhaps Tabu's face has undergone some reengineering (the stars are in the business of looking good, so we're not complaining!) and Missing Review - Hindi Movie Missing Review is why she looks odd initially, but then everything she says is either shrill or vapid, you begin to look out for scenes with Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Of course, not one police officer bothers to check or even confiscate Manoj Bajpayee's cell phone to corroborate the stories he's telling. The background music tries really hard to create some sort of ambience but ends up being super annoying. Even worse is Annu Kapoor speaking Hindi in a Bihari accent and even speaking French (so grating to the ears!) to prove that he is indeed Mauritian.

Producer: Seth Fuller and Scott Hussion Director: Scott Hussion and Seth Fuller Writer: Victor Zarkoff Stars: Neville Archambault, Chelsea Edmundson, Amber Midthunder, Hank Rogerson, John-Paul Howard, Brytnee Ratledge, Gavin bWhite, Lora Martinez-Cunningham, Brianne Moncrief, Zach Dulin and Kodi Saint Angelo Studio: Gravitas Ventures

Voyeurism of a most extreme sort was the subject of Victor Zarkoff?s ?13 Cameras,? a low-budget thriller that grew increasingly implausible as it progressed but was nonetheless tightly constructed and genuinely creepy. The sequel expands things by adding not only another camera but needless subplots, and the tightness evaporates. ?14 Cameras? becomes a flat, pointless bore, marked by poor writing and slipshod construction, as well as flat directing and amateurish acting.

In ?13 Cameras,? the villain, creepy landlord Gerald (Neville Archambault), simply spied on his tenants until fatally intervening in their troubled lives. It was a slim story, but for the most part was crisply staged and executed. This time around, Gerald is more of an entrepreneur who rents out a baker? Watch 14 Cameras 2018 of camera-equipped homes, footage from which he streams out to paying customers on the dark web.

He still, however, has his own perverted interests. He keeps Claire (Brianne Moncrief), the pregnant housewife from the first movie, imprisoned in an underground chamber, and when one of his renters, Sarah (Chelsea Edmundson), almost catches him rambling about in her house, he tosses her in as well, though he never seems to have contact with the women except for occasional trips to bathe them tenderly. In one plot thread, Sarah attempts to escape despite Claire? thanostv not to?good advice, as it turns out.

In any event, after a pointless prologue involving a couple (Zach Dulin and Kodi Saint Angelo) who simply banter for awhile before disappearing in their car, the focus shifts to a new bunch of renters: parents Arthur (Hank Rogerson) and Lori (Lora Martinez-Cunningham), their daughter Molly (Brytnee Ratledge) and her horny younger brother Kyle (John-Paul Howard), who has the hots for Molly?s friend Danielle (Amber Midthunder), their guest. Much of the movie is given over to desultory footage of them, enlivened only when one of Gerald?s customers decides to pay the girls an unwelcome visit and Gerald intervenes to protect them.

By this time, however, Junior (Gavin White), a teen who lives with Gerald (and may be the son Claire never knew), investigates what his ?guardian? has been up to and decides to save Claire, and the family will become engaged as well. But though Gerald?s flow of footage will halt, a coda is added to suggest there might be life in the old goat yet and the hiatus in his work output could be temporary.

Though Zarkoff wrote the script for this sequel to his surprise little succ�s d?estime, he passed directing duties along to producers Seth Fuller and Scott Hussion, who exhibit little flair for structure or pacing and are unable to draw anything but the most elementary performances from the cast, although it must be admitted that Archambault remains a menacing presence. Fuller also served as cinematographer, and shows little aptitude in that capacity either. Editor Zach Lee gives the picture no perceptible rhythm, failing to inject any excitement into what is pretty flaccid footage.

Just like his earlier short, Hereditary feels like nothing more than a provocation, updating the parental anxieties of Rosemary?s Baby for the modern era ? and adding no substantial allegory that makes it feel any deeper than this.

In 2011, Ari Aster?s debut short film The Strange Thing About the Johnsons became a minor internet sensation due to its controversial subject matter ? a darkly comic study of an African American family where the son sexually abuses his father. Although the short is in the same vein as numerous Adult Swim skits, where horror and comedy at their most extreme intertwine, it still managed to generate a significant amount of publicity for a cult item from a first time director. Was his horrifying short an offbeat social commentary, dealing with the topic of race in America with one of the more offensive allegories imaginable?

The answer was, quite obviously, no. Aster conceived the film based on a desire to tell a story about the most ludicrous, yet offensive, concept imaginable, with the African American cast a byproduct of him casting a friend in the lead role. But this didn?t stop people trying to find deeper meaning in a film designed entirely as a black comic provocation ? something designed to shock you, not reach for a laptop to pen a 1,000 word thinkpiece on the apparent meaning behind it. A handful of shorts later, and his feature debut Hereditary has arrived to mass fanfare; many are declaring it one of the scariest films ever made, and it?s even generated Oscar talk this early in the game.

And yet, just like his earlier short, Hereditary feels like nothing more than a provocation, updating the parental anxieties of Rosemary?s Baby for the modern era ? and adding no substantial allegory that makes it feel any deeper than this. Aster is a very technically precise filmmaker, and on that level, this is one of the most accomplished debuts of recent memory; he can get stellar performances from his entire ensemble, and ensures they are integrated perfectly into the oppressive atmosphere he?s conjured up.

But this is a film that?s all atmosphere, with the broad themes of marriage, parenthood and religion all thrown in with very little, if anything, to say about any of them. The lack of deeper meaning would be fine, of course, were this not a film that (for the most part) takes itself way too seriously, even as it moves in a direction closer to Blumhouse than Polanski.

The terrificToni Collette stars as Annie, an artist who has suffered the recent loss of her mother following a long battle with cancer. She openly admits to not being able to process the news properly ? at one point, she even asks her husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne) whether she should be sadder. The pair live with their two children, stoner high schooler Peter (Alex Wolff) and Charlie (Milly Shapiro), their tween daughter with an unspecified disability.

Days later, Steve gets the unexpected news that Annie?s mother?s grave has been dug up, and Charlie starts to act increasingly strange ? frequently wandering off into the garden following some mysterious presence, in spite of her shy reserve. Elsewhere, after returning to a grief counseling class she initially attended after her mother passed away, Annie meets Joan (Ann Dowd), who leads her to a new stage in the grieving process that has drastic consequences for the mental and physical wellbeing of the entire family unit.

Hereditary?s tonal inconsistency and lack of thematic depth stops it from ever being scary ? but that isn?t to say it doesn?t impress in many other departments. Aster has a precise command of the film?s visuals, with a meticulous production design reminiscent of Wes Anderson; in the finest moments, he uses small details in the film?s design to foreshadow later plot points, be they a diary in the daughter?s bedroom or a lingering shot of a letter about spirituality being forced through a letterbox. His style is also far removed from the stylistic hallmarks of jump-scare horror. He prefers to linger on a long take, soaking up the reaction of his actors in extreme close-up, a method which proves to be more unsettling than any of the directly supernatural elements.

The first two-thirds of the film often feel like Michael Haneke has made a supernatural horror ? and by pure coincidence, Colette?s character is named Annie, whereas Haneke names almost all of his female characters Anne. It could be argued that this is a similarly twisted satirisation of a bourgeois family in crisis, but again, it doesn?t really hold that thematic weight; the family?s large house seems to have been designed purely for its unsettling visual qualities, more than to signify anything deeper about the family itself.

(The following two paragraphs refer to an event that takes place around the 30 minute mark. If you don?t want to have this event spoiled, skip ahead.)

In fact, the only area that the film holds any substantial provocative weight is in its suggestion that a disabled character is a natural source of horror, and this is only provocative due to how misjudged it frequently feels. Shapiro?s Charlie is the first character to witness any otherworldly occurrences, and as she continues to haunt the family after her first-act passing, it?s hard to escape the feeling that Aster made the spectre that haunts (both literally and figuratively) the family disabled because it would directly play into audience prejudices.

I?m hoping this isn?t the case, but considering this is a man whose first short film was about a son sexually abusing his father, made purely because he wanted to tell the most offensive story possible, I?m not sure whether to give this the benefit of the doubt. It doesn?t expose audience prejudice so much as it shows that he isn?t above using outdated thematic ideas in his quest to unsettle. This isn?t a fault of Shapiro?s performance, her first film role after playing Matilda in the recent Broadway musical, so much as it is a fault of Aster?s for creating a character with an unspecified disability and proceeding to make her the film?s ghostly presence with no depth beyond this.

By the time we get to the third act, the film is held together entirely by Aster?s command of the camera and the strength of the three central performances, because the story becomes increasingly tonally inconsistent. The oppressive, Haneke-lite atmosphere of the earlier stages is suddenly exchanged for an unexpected dose of camp that undermines everything that came before it. I have no problem with the change in tone, in theory ? but unlike a film such as Darren Aronofsky?s mother!, there?s http://ow.ly/xdDk101nKzg that the tone is evolving with the story.

https://www.thanostv.org/movie/hereditary-2018 sold by this being ?The Exorcist for a new generation? will be left scratching their heads as a slow burning psychological thriller becomes unashamedly goofy. However, I am admittedly curious as to how the film would play with this prior knowledge; the story reaches its natural conclusion, even if the tight command of tone is significantly loosened.

Ari Aster only has plans to make one more horror film following Hereditary, which is something of a relief. His debut is proof that he?s a technically accomplished director, who knows how to get stellar performances from his cast ? but due to an unfortunate tendency for needless (and fairly thematically empty) provocation when it comes to choosing subject matter, moving in a lighter direction might suit him well, and help him counter his worst instincts.

Hereditary is tonally messy, but the hallmarks of a great director are shown here. Hopefully his sophomore feature will fulfill the promise of this debut.

A curiosity whichever way you slice it, Animal World features a maniacal clown battling bizarre CGI monsters, Michael Douglas flying his super-villain freak flag, and intermittent maths lectures to explain possible strategies in a huge, deadly tournament of rock-scissors-paper. There?s some narrative logic girding the whole unlikely structure, but it?s a wilfully eccentric mix. Imagine a YouTube video mashup of ultraviolent manga, David Fincher?s Douglas-starrer The Game from 1997, and a TED talk about game theory ? except thanostv making this sound like more fun to watch than it is, especially given the bloated two-hour-plus running time.

Li Yifeng https://www.thanostv.org/movie/animal-world-2018 as Kaisi, a damaged young man who works as a clown in a local arcade. In moments of emotional stress, Kaisi is prone to imagine himself as a clown with ace fighting skills battling ornate beasties in, for no particular reason, a subway car. It all has something to do with a trauma stemming from childhood, when his father was killed while Kaisi was watching a clown-themed TV show. In the present, he?s scrambling to make enough money to pay for his comatose mother?s hospital bills, and forced to borrow from his schoolfriend and sort-of girlfriend Qing (Zhou Dongyu), a gamine love interest who happens to also be a nurse, thus saving on locations.

Batman (Roger Craig Smith) has raced over to Arkham Asylum in Gotham City because he has learned Gorilla Grodd (Fred Tatasciore) has constructed a time machine and he is planning to activate it tonight. Grodd wishes to master time itself, but Batman arrives too late and the ape's creation springs into life sending arcs of energy across the building and zapping everything in a wide radius out of existence in the twenty-first century and hurtling back through the centuries. The next thing the Caped Crusader knows, he is in a Japanese village - Feudal Japan, that is, as he quickly learns the denizens of the asylum have established themselves there as warlords. How can he stop them? DC were going through a rough patch when Batman Ninja, a few years in production, was released, as Justice League had arrived hot on the heels of the much-admired Wonder Woman and seemingly landed the producers back where they were when their projects were being criticised left, right and centre, nowhere near as consistently popular as their rivals at Marvel were. This was a co-creation between the American company and Japanese animators, with the latter taking most of the creative duties; after a brief introduction in Gotham City, Bats was well and truly in the hands of those talents from across the Pacific, and the reaction was, predictably for the twenty-tens, a mixed one. Many fans did not appreciate what the Japanese had done to these classic American characters, but if you were not so precious, Batman Ninja was a lot of fun and once again proved he was one of the most versatile of the comic book heroes: plonk him down in just about any setting and he made perfect sense, adapting to his environment thanks to his innate moral code and drive to right wrongs. Everyone can understand that, and here he was given the trappings of Japanese traditions in entertainment, most prominently the way in which he got to battle giant robots, all powered by his greatest foes, of course. Yes, watch batman ninja 2018 have made the leap to Japan as well - why? Why not? If the premise was flimsy, sit back and enjoy what was a simple idea to set the Dark Knight in a foreign clime which invigorated his basic motivations thanks to his gadgets and machines being quickly whittled down to nothing, forcing him to reassess himself and retrain as... a ninja! You may observe this was pretty much what he had done back in Gotham for decades, but here it was more overt, as he is present to fulfil a local prophecy about a bat-based pioneer who will save the nation from bad guys who have dominated the land with an iron grip. Click Here was true most of that bunch who made the trip didn't get a fair crack of the whip, baddies like Deathstroke or Poison Ivy barely getting ten lines between them, but the imagining of The Joker, voiced in the English dub by Tony Hale with lunatic aplomb, was a fine design. Each of the characters were recreated in anime style, produced by relative newcomer director Junpei Mizusaki in a combination of hand drawn and CGI stylings that looked rather splendid, breathing new life into the same old appearances. Only the female characters looked as if the Japanese artists had not quite gotten the hang of Western feminine characteristics, with Catwoman sporting a most matronly bosom and Harley Quinn over-generous in the backside area. But body-shaming aside, the energy of Batman Ninja made up for plenty, and each time you thought it was running out of steam it would turn another corner and justify itself with a new innovation that may have been part and parcel of many an anime fantasy, yet in this context with these heroes and villains the novelty was extremely strong. Some may find it disrespectful to their beloved comics, but really it was picking up the concepts and having fun with them; again, the exuberance of the imagery made up for a lot, where else would you see a giant Batman made of bats and monkeys punching out a Joker Transformer? Music by Yûgo Kanno. [BATMAN NINJA is out on Digital Download now and available on Blu-ray™ Steelbook, Blu-ray™ and DVD May 14.]

I just saw this Chinese film called Animal World at AMC Grapevine Mills, and while it?s not much good as a movie, it poses a math problem that I can?t get out of my head. So I?m writing up this film (which just outearned the Jurassic World sequel at the Chinese box office) and hoping that someone with my fondness for such problems and a deeper background in game theory can break it down for me.

The movie starts like a whole other type of story, with Zheng Kaisi (Li Yifeng) a depressed young man working as a clown in a video arcade and imagining himself as some Joker-like superhuman battling monsters. This has no bearing on the rest of the film, and even more confusingly, is apparently not in the Japanese manga comic that this is based on. We get 20 minutes of a movie about some loser coping with his dead-end life by escaping into violent fantasy until his childhood friend Li Jun (Cao Bingkun) loses both their life savings by roping him into a real-estate scam that Kaisi should really be smart enough to avoid.

The math problem only starts when Kaisi is abducted by a mysterious American named Anderson (Michael Douglas) who owns his debt. He offers the young man a chance to clear his losses in one night by participating in a game, and soon Kaisi is on a seedy cargo ship with Li Jun and 101 other desperate men. The game is rock-paper-scissors, and each player starts the game with three metal stars affixed to an armband, as well as 12 playing cards marked with a symbol denoting rock, paper, or scissors (four of each). Watch Animal World 2018 go to one of several dealer tables and play their cards one at a time against others. Win a hand, and you get to take one star from the other player. Lose, and be forced to surrender a star to your opponent. Draw, and no stars change hands. After each hand, the referees at the tables remove the cards from circulation. (The refs are all black men, for reasons that are never explained.) The object of the game is for players to play all 12 of their cards and emerge with at least three stars, the prize being freedom. A clock gives everyone four hours to play, and anyone with less than three stars or any cards left to play at the end of that time gets taken down to the ship?s hold to be subjected to horrible medical experiments. A big scoreboard shows not only the time left but also how many cards of each type remain in play on the gaming floor. A bank on the floor advances cash loans to players at absurdly high interest rates, and the players can use the money to buy stars or cards off other players. Sellers get to name their price, and those who finish the four hours with more than three stars can unload their extras for a mint to losing gamblers who want to stay alive.

Kaisi?s first strategy is the obvious one: Pair up with a buddy and arrange to have both players play the same cards in the same order, resulting in 12 draws and both players walking free. But since the players are mostly strangers to one another, it?s impossible to tell who to trust, and the guy Kaisi colludes with (Su Ke) cheats him out of two stars before he realizes it. (Oh, yeah: Players are allowed to cheat each other but not the house. One guy tries to flush his cards down the toilet, and Anderson executes him in the middle of the casino floor.) Kaisi then gathers with Li Jun and a sad sack with broken glasses (Wang Ge) to pool their stars and develop a winning strategy, made possible by their knowledge of which cards are left in the game. When http://ow.ly/MBvC101nKXh starting running substantially lower than the other types, Kaisi tells his cohorts to buy up rock cards with their cash advance, figuring that those cards will either draw other rocks or beat the still-plentiful scissors cards. However, this tactic backfires when somebody picks up the strategy and starts hoarding papers, forcing Kaisi to reverse his direction before his rocks become worse than useless. Later, he faces down the guy who cheated him earlier, knowing that the man has one card that he must get rid of and trying to bait him into making a bad bet with it.

What else? The casino floor is monitored extensively by security cameras, and no physical violence is allowed, so taking someone else?s stars by force isn?t an option. Anderson?s game combines the bluffing elements of poker or the prisoner?s dilemma with the card-counting possibilities of blackjack, while rewarding those who know the laws of supply and demand. Animal World is dry and repetitive, but it got my gamer brain going. My question to you, gamers, is what would be the best strategy to beat Anderson at his game? How would you play?

Texas writer Joe Lansdale has said that, even though he was born in the 1950s, he was raised in the 1930s: That’s a byproduct of living in the remote rural areas, that there’s a lag in time. It’s not just a conceit for filmmakers to be able to dispense with cell phones and the internet. When young Henry (Villacis) is dropped off to spend a few weeks with his grandfather (Ironside) in the middle of nowhere Canada, he may as well be in the past. His parents have taken off for funeral, which seems to be as good an excuse for a weekend away without him, even if it means leaving him with the estranged wing of the family, away from modernity and safety.

The smart choice of music in the opening sequence – a piece of faux-honky tonk frippery – throws the audience off the trail of exactly when this Knuckleball is being thrown, and that’s a deliberate decision by director/co-writer Peterson (Lloyd the Conqueror). Once Henry gets out of his parent’s car, he’s in a pre-cell phone world. Heck, his grandfather even eschews landlines in favor of word of mouth, hard labor, and self-inflicted misery. “Work ain’t fun,” he grumbles as a lecture to his new charge, while still doing his curmudgeonly best to give his one link to family at least a glimpse at a decent time. At least they can bond over baseball, and Henry’s got a halfway decent pitching arm that his grandpa appreciates. Review: Knuckleball is lean, mean and eerie would make for a fun enough little diversion, as Ironside being charming and surly is a wonderful combination. But those chest pains are a sure-fired sign that Henry may not be able to count on the not-so-tender mercies of grandpa for much longer – leaving him much more at the mercies of Dixon (Ironside’s Turbo Kid costar Chambers), the mysterious young man who lives next door.

DVD Talk Review of the Theatrical is pure frozen Southern Gothic: Ominous chords, slow pans, flashbacks as splinters of an image, family secrets, locked barns, and the flat silences that only comes from the muffling effects of snow, the kind of snow that buries the past and sucks up screams. Knuckleball (2018) Movie Review from Eye for Film isn't reinventing the tractor wheel here, but it's undoubtedly a well-executed chiller, once Dixon realizes exactly how much power he has. Of course, the inversion comes, as Henry realizes that Dixon's exactly the kind of neighbor you don't want you inviting over for soup. The Home Alone-esque denouement as Henry fights for his young life, and Dixon gets ever more frothing-at-the-mouth vengeful, gets suitably grisly (arguably reminiscent of under-seen French 1990 survival thriller 3615 code Père Noël, currently undergoing a little bit of a revival courtesy of a restoration and screening at Fantastic Fest this year). The final act even sweeps in a real oldie from the original wave of Gothic literature that may seem a little dated, but the loyalty to the genre is undeniable.

With 2011?s Like Crazy, writer-director Drake Doremus announced himself as a skilled observer of the heart-swelling highs and soul-crushing lows of being in a relationship. Specifically in that film, the minute intricacies of being in a long-distance relationship played out by Felicity Jones and Anton Yelchin. It picked up the grand jury prize at Sundance and while the buzz didn?t translate at the box office, it led to Doremus landing a string of starry follow-ups.

While Breathe In, which paired Jones with Guy Pearce, was a moderate critical success, with each ensuing film, Doremus?s star started to fade. Despite a splashy premiere at the Venice film festival and a cast headed up by Kristen Stewart, Equals was a misfire and the following year saw a muted reaction at Sundance to Nicholas Hoult in Newness, later dumped with little fanfare on Netflix.

In his latest, premiering at the Tribeca film festival, Doremus returns to themes that he is now become synonymous with. Like Tribeca 2018: Zoe Is a Poor Story of Love, L�a Seydoux, and Sex Robots , it?s an examination of modern romance and like 2015?s Equals, there?s an added sci-fi bent. In the near future, synthetic humans have become commonplace additions to society. While most inhabit service roles, making drinks and cutting grass, one company has mastered a higher class of robot, virtually indistinguishable from the humans around them. Zoe (L�a Seydoux) works in this lab alongside designer Cole (Ewan McGregor) and the two share a light workplace flirtation.

But underneath the surface lies a secret, something that prevents Zoe and Cole from progressing any further. When Zoe takes a compatibility test at work to check who would make a match for her, Cole is forced to tell her the truth: Zoe isn?t human. With Zoe now aware of who and what she is, so comes a re-examination of the world around her and her place within it. While initially Cole tries to fight his attraction to her, he soon relents and the pair forge ahead into uncharted territory.

There?s an ever-expanding subgenre of films that imagine a future where dating and relationships have been irrevocably affected by technology. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Marjorie Prime, Her, The Lobster and Black Mirror?s Hang the DJ all existed in this heightened territory and all managed to find identifiable truths wrapped up in fantastical packaging. The world created within Zoe exists alongside these, not too dissimilar to the one we?re in now but with a clear, profound difference. Given the rise of AI and, more specifically, the rise of AI aimed at decreasing loneliness, there?s a timeliness to the events that take place in Zoe.

The company at the center of the story creates a range of products that feel a mere modification away from many that are being developed at the moment. There?s a pleasingly casual nature to the way that tech is embedded within the story. While some exposition is a bit clumsy, the world feels mostly well-constructed and easy to believe. It?s not hard to see the appeal of an aesthetically pleasing partner who, as the employees keep reminding us, will never break your heart or leave you. The characters here are weathered by heartbreak, tired of disappointment and looking for something or someone to believe in.

Doremus, and screenwriter Richard Greenberg, have packed their film with intriguing questions. How much of tech is biased by its creator? Is compatibility able to be predicted through an algorithm? How much perfection does one really want in a partner? But while the script?s early observations are delivered with subtlety, as the film progresses others are given a more heavy-handed touch. One of the products in the film is a pill that mimics the sensation of falling in love so couples either take it to briefly recapture their early romance or strangers take it for a more intense sexual high. As with Doremus?s last film Newness, this world of easily accessible casual sex becomes emotionally destructive but the script doesn?t get much further than that hardly earth-shattering conclusion. Although it does allow us to see a robo-brothel with a strange, underwhelming cameo from Christina Aguilera as an android of the night.

One of the bigger problems here is how easy it becomes to compare Zoe with better, richer films of its ilk. The social commentary feels somewhat shallow compared to the perceptive nature of Her or Eternal Sunshine or even a number of episodes of Black Mirror. It?s so stylishly made that one wishes the world on screen could have housed a more emotionally complex story to match.

At its core, there?s a strong, haunted performance from McGregor playing a man wearing his heart and his emotional baggage on full display and at times, he has a naturalistic flirtatious rapport with a striking Seydoux. Yet the film demands so much investment in their relationship that when events lurch into rockier territory, the shift is so sudden that it? Tribeca 2018: Zoe Is a Poor Story of Love, L�a Seydoux, and Sex Robots to really feel what is required. There?s also an underused Rashida Jones as McGregor? Zoe Movie Review & Film Summary (2018) , a somewhat meaningless role for Theo James as a curious experiment and a campy turn from Miranda Otto as a madam.

Zoe is an attractively made yet dour and often shallow look at love that muddles along when it should be searing a hole. It?s an impressive shell that needs a bigger heart.

I haven't yet seen director/writer/editor/composer Andy Mitton's previous two features, We Go On and Yellowbrickroad, but having watched his new film The Witch in the Window (formerly known as The Vermont House) at Fantasia 2018, I'm going to have to rectify that as soon as possible.

The story follows New York City denizen and middle-aged dad Simon (Alex Draper) as he picks up his son Finn (Charlie Tacker) from his estranged wife Beverly (Arija Bareikis). The goal is to fix up a house in the middle of nowhere, Vermont, get Finn away from the Internet and city life, and to bond with some quality father-son time.

Problem, is the fixer-upper in the countryside already has a resident of the permanent kind, Lydia. The issue with most haunted house stories is that they never tread new ground, exhausting the same plot points and tropes again and again.

I'm thrilled to say that The Witch in the Window (coming to Shudder soon) has no such downside, and the premise of sprucing up an old house with a ghost in it will be where comparisons with this feature and Old Dark House stories end.

The best part of watching films is the hunt for the elusive gem that surprises and surpasses expectations, and The Witch in the Window is it. When you think you know where the film is going, you won't. THE WITCH IN THE WINDOW Terrifies and Surprises between the aggressive ghost Lydia and Simon and Finn are quite different from what we're used to seeing; they're scared, but they confront her head-on at times, even going right up to her when she's asleep in her favorite chair.

Even better? There's one particular scene that gave me actual goosebumps --- and the other filmmakers I attended the screening with felt the same way. We rhapsodized on the effectiveness of that scene and its ability to absolutely surprise us. I'd love to be able to reveal the trick that Mitton used within his excellent trick, but it'd be evil of me to spoil such a beautiful, chilling scene.

In THE WITCH IN THE WINDOW Terrifies and Surprises , to say much more at all about the plot of the film does it a disservice. I'll say that this is a heady nightmare of real-world horrors and the poignancy of knowing that you really cannot protect the ones you love, no matter how much you try. THE WITCH IN THE WINDOW Terrifies and Surprises in the Window is gloriously written, acted, and directed; it's a horror film set in mostly one location, but it's also a discovery into what you can really do on an independent film with a likely tiny budget and crew.

Don't go into the film expecting the big budget ballast of Hereditary, but an indie completely different that doesn't show the supernatural so much as makes you feel it. At its, the The Witch in the Window is a study on the loss of those you love and hold most dear. Check this one out as soon as you can if you love quiet horror that burns slow until you don't know you're almost out of wick. Highly recommended.

It seems as we inch ever closer to the day of actual sentient artificial intelligence?the point of supposed ?singularity??we are getting glummer and more morose about our movie robots. While the ultimate cybernetic menace remains 1968?s HAL 9000 and his snootiness about who can and cannot come in, by and large we used to enjoy our robotic brethren, naming them things like ?Robby? and ?R2,? and ?Rachael.? At least this weekend?s Upgrade tries to have it both ways by introducing a new technological marvel in ?Stem,? an AI doohickey that can attach to your broken spine and give you the ability to walk? and perform kung fu. So while he might be low key shady in his insidious conquest of your autonomy, at least he?ll make you look good while doing it!

Such is the pulpy and generally amusing conceit of Upgrade, a science fiction film from Leigh Whannell and Blumhouse Productions. The film is not nearly as smart as it could have been, or even seems to think it is, yet it still makes for an enjoyable B-movie, right down to its questionable acting and wholly unconvincing science. Ex Machina, it ain?t, but this attempt at Paul Verhoeven-lite reminds us of a time when sci-fi could also be seductively seedy in its conceits?fluffing the pillow in the coffin our robo-overlords are laying us down in.

Set in a not-so-distant future where self-driving cars get you where you want to go, Upgrade is about a salt of the earth sonofabitch named Grey (Logan Marshall-Green). And we know Grey is old school cool because he?s introduced fixing up the engine on his mid-20th century sports car while drinking a beer just as his wife Asha (Melanie Vallejo) has her fancy-schmancy automated vehicle drive her home. This marriage?one between a glorified mechanic and a corporate climber in the cybernetic limb-replacement industry?makes about as much sense as The Honeymooners, but theirs is a sweet and idyllic romance.

So it of course has to end brutally. Faster than you can say Charles Bronson, a gang of hooligans led by Fisk (Benedict Hardie) fridge Asha in a needlessly violent and gross scene that also leaves Grey paralyzed from the neck down. With the cops unable to find the punks who put his wife on ice, Grey is near suicidal while trapped in his glossy, computerized home. That is until an old client who paid him to upgrade a Detroit classic comes calling. Eron (Harrison Gilbertson) is a reclusive mad scientist type with Mark Zuckerberg money. And wouldn?t you know, he has created a computer chip that can be attached to Grey?s spine and that will allow him complete motor functions.

This computer, which calls itself ?Stem? (voiced by Simon Maiden), is where the real fun of the film starts. Stem, for purely deferential reasons mind you, wishes to help Grey find the men responsible for this wife?s murder. Able to heighten not only Grey?s dexterity, but even his eyesight, his cognitive abilities, and eventually martial arts skills, Stem turns a generic setup into a delightful thriller bordering on grindhouse. Slowly, Stem convinces Grey to give the machine more and more control over his body, allowing them to fight punks, solve crimes, and evade the fuzz. thanostv is obviously going to end terribly for Grey, but if all he has is a devil on his shoulder (and inside his head), at least that means we?ll all have some fun before the bill comes due.

further reading: The Must See Movies of 2018

As a movie, there is something deliciously low rent about the last two-thirds of Upgrade. Whannell has always had a knack for discovering terrific genre hooks in his films (he co-created the Saw and Insidious franchises before graduating to director on Insidious: Chapter 3). And that intuition serves him well here. Allowed to wallow in a grime that owes as much to Death Wish and RoboCopas it does 2001: A Space Odyssey, Whannell and Jason Blum?s low budget but high ambition mostly serves up gleeful and sadistic thrills.

Most of the stunts and special effects in the film are done in-camera and with a propulsive cruelty that maximizes the violence and visceral revulsion. Leaning heavily into the shock gore of Saw, the film is a hard R, and yet keeps the the gratuitousness to such fleeting flashes that it avoids being truly grotesque. Instead it adds to the character of a film that has a blast building a world obsessed with all the wacky things cybernetic enhancements can achieve. Indeed, Grey winds up not just tracing street thugs, but other half-man, half-machine hybrids (or ?upgrades? as they call themselves in their own underworld crime scene). This ultimately becomes a kind of product comparison of the various types of cyborg models running around town.

It is in Grey discovering an illegal operation grown out of hacking artificial limbs where the movie?s creativity shines. While it?s in a mostly pedestrian story that the picture is prevented from rising above being a lean, mean diversion. The first act is particularly laborious as the film goes through the tired motion of murdering a wife and watching a man suffer only to get to crawl toward the film?s true start: Stem being inserted into Grey?s head.

Presented as a synthetic id, always egging Grey on to do the wrong thing, it is an interesting glimpse into a future where Lucifer has been digitized and Faustian bargains are the equivalent of iTunes user agreements. A smarter movie would fully unpack what it would be like for a human to live with a second consciousness in his head, especially if it had no conscience unto itself. It also would take the time to delve into the dichotomy of man and machine beyond surface level details that make no sense?like Grey being a good ol? boy who lives in a house that is completely windowless and lit up by LCD screens.

There is a laziness to the film that doesn?t quite let it become the sleazy sci-fi cult classic it obviously yearns to ascend to. The narrative is muddled, and the performances are scattershot, with Gillberston?s evil tech billionaire being too arch for even late night sketch comedy.

Even so, the film has a wry playfulness in its final acts, and a good ear for sensationalist dialogue. In one noteworthy scene, Grey even lets his body stay paralyzed as it is tortured by goons who are themselves spilling their guts, he then tells Stem to ?take the wheel.? Whenever Stem does, that kind of morbid mischief is a joy. Just don?t expect Stem to stick in your head nearly so well as he does for Grey.

Melissa McCarthy goes back to school in her latest comedy “Life of the Party”, which was filmed almost two years ago. She plays Deanna, a bubbly mom who joins her husband Dan in dropping off their daughter Maddie to her senior year of college. As they start to drive away, Dan informs Deanna he wants a divorce.

The opening stretch of the film plays-out like an emotional family drama ? completely laugh- https://www.thanostv.org/movie/life-of-the-party-2018 . And then come a few antics that are featured in the trailers and commercials. “Life of the Party” is another classic case of a comedy that puts its best stuff in the promos, while the actual film provides very few funny or memorable scenes.

You’d think Deanna deciding to go back to get her archaeology degree and enrolling in the same college as her daughter would provide some hilarious material right out of the gate. But it just doesn’t, specifically because mother and daughter are simply too nice to each other. So then you hoping “Life of the Party” will take off when Maddie decides to make her mom feel young again with a complete 180 make-over. Wrong again.

Outside of a few McCarthy moments, Maya Rudolph, as Deanna’s friend Christine, is the only one in the cast who adds energy. I came to the conclusion towards the end of “Life of the Party” that if McCarthy and Rudolph made a movie where they just sit on a bench and talk for 90 minutes it would be a lot funnier than what they made here.

The main problem? This is the third time McCarthy has starred in a comedy that she’s co-written with husband Ben Falcone, who also serves as director. 2014’s “Tammy” and 2016’s “The Boss” both had passable concepts but disappointing results. And with “Life of the Party” they’ve hit the trifecta. This script is uneven and inconsistent. For example, at one point the extremely chatty, outgoing Deanna becomes mortified by public speaking. What? You don’t change a character’s established persona simply to fit a scene later in the film.

When others write her material, as with “Bridesmaids”, “Spy” and� “St. Vincent”, McCarthy shines. She’s without a doubt one of the funniest and most likable actresses in Hollywood. It’s clear the time has come for her to play to her strengths ? and put down the pen.

We’ll see a different side of McCarthy in the drama “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”, opening in October. This looks to be a game-changer for someone who really needs and deserves it. On The Official LCJ Report Card, “Life of the Party” gets a C-.

Written by: Evgenia Peretz, Jim Taylor, Tamara Jenkins, based on a novel by Nick Hornby

Based on a novel by Nick Hornby and veering close to High Fidelity music nerd territory, this romantic drama is slight and narrow in scope, but its performers are dedicated and its passions run deep. In Juliet, Naked, cultural arts professor Duncan (Chris O'Dowd) runs a web forum dedicated to an obscure American alternative musician Tucker Crowe whose 1993 album Juliet Duncan considers a masterpiece. Meanwhile, his longtime girlfriend Annie (Rose Byrne) is stuck running a museum left to her by her father, and putting up with her boyfriend's obsession. When a package containing a mysterious, early version of the album called Juliet, Naked arrives, Annie listens to it before Duncan. Duncan is furious, and even more so when Annie posts a negative review of it on the forum. Weirdly, she receives a message from none other than Tucker Crowe (Ethan Hawke) himself, telling her he agrees with her. watch juliet, naked 2018 begin to correspond regularly, unloading their troubles on each other. When Duncan announces that he's having an affair, Annie leaves him and becomes even closer with Tucker. But what happens when Duncan finds out about her new friend? Older viewers that remember falling in love with an album well before the days of MP3s or streaming music services will identify with these lovable misfits. Juliet, Naked is not a story of dreams coming true, but of learning to let go of the past, or perhaps learning which parts of the past to let go of. The movie gets points for humanizing its rock 'n' roll star, and for Hawke's all-too-human portrayal of him. He's a mess, and the links between his music and his mistakes are easy to see. Juliet, Naked also creates, in its margins, a roster of younger characters coming of age in this weird, complicated world. This movie doesn't simply take place in a vacuum, focused on three souls only. It exists in a world where consequences ring far and wide. The music is, of course, important for holding everything together, and a sequence in which Tucker Crowe performs The Kinks' "Waterloo Sunset" is a true beauty. Jesse Peretz (First Love, Last Rites) directs with a surprising non-slapsticky softness of touch, similar to his wonderful Our Idiot Brother, and the screenplay is co-written by such humanists as filmmaker Tamara Jenkins (The Savages) and Oscar-winner Jim Taylor (Sideways). Lionsgate's Blu-ray release looks and sounds terrific, but the only extra is a 10-minute, behind-the-scenes featurette. The set also includes a digital copy, and some trailers at startup.

THE HERO tells the story of washed-up actor Lee Hayden, whose career has been languishing for some time. Several events in Lee?s life start the plot rolling. A ceremony and lifetime achievement award by a fan-club of western films is offered to him, he is introduced to and starts a relationship with a young woman named Charlotte, and he receives a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Lee is played by veteran actor Sam Elliott, who had the role written for him after starring in Haley?s previous film I?LL SEE YOU IN MY DREAMS. Lee?s most famous and personal favorite role was as a cowboy in a movie called ?The Hero? and also maintains steady work giving voice-overs even now that his career has hit a brick wall. ThanosTV is a very likable performer already so it is fantastic to see him in a role that very much mirrors the actor himself.

The rest of the cast includes Laura Prepon as Charlotte, the woman who Lee begins seeing regularly. Nick Offerman, who plays Jeremy, an old friend and costar of Lee?s who now makes his living as a drug-dealer. Krysten Ritter plays Lee?s estranged daughter Lucy, and Sam Elliott?s wife Katharine Ross plays Lee?s ex-wife. This is a good ensemble cast, but unfortunately most of the film is focused on just Lee spending time with Charlotte. Lee?s reconciliation with his daughter is the most investing part of the story but it receives relatively little screen-time. Lee and Charlotte?s scenes are definitely more fun and active than Lee?s moments contemplating his broken relationship with Lucy and his personal struggle to cope with the fact that he is dying. However, Lee?s chemistry with Charlotte is a lacking in all but a few of the scenes they share together. This could be because of the age difference or it could also be Elliot?s droll performance as Lee. That performance is great though, and Prepon does a good job in her role as well, so I am not quite sure how this problem could be fixed. Dropping the romance subplot entirely is the only thing that could be done to avoid the issue. Placing more focus on Lee?s attempts to reconnect with his daughter and his ex-wife or his friendship with Jeremy would have also been nice.

The lack of attention makes Offerman, Ritter, and Ross each feel wasted. Charlotte seems to represent the hope for Lee to have a brighter future whereas these other characters represent the life that he can hopefully repair. It would have been great for both of these aspects to be given a comparable amount of attention. Throughout the film Lee wrestles internally with his diagnosis and does not show very many outward signs of what is going on in his head. This all starts to crumble in later scenes, with one particular moment standing out among them all. Lee?s speech at his award ceremony leads to him reading for a new role in a film during which he breaks down in tears. It is perhaps the most powerful scene of the production and Elliott?s acting really shines in it.

One of the strongest suits of THE HERO is the camerawork. There are several beautifully composed shots that the camera lingers on and allows the viewer to fully enjoy. These scenes range from Lee in full cowboy regalia walking a dusty dirt path to him standing out in front of a grey ocean and just staring out over it. There are too many striking shots like this to count and they can only really be appreciated upon viewing. THE HERO handles some heavy subject matter with grace and Sam Elliott does a magnificent job in the lead. His performance alone carries the film and makes it worth seeing, especially when the quality of the character?s writing and the camerawork is taken into account. All of this earns the film a 4/5.

Well into a summer blockbuster season that starts now in, oh, roughly late March, by August we’ve all recalibrated our expectations, come to some peace with substandard offerings. Just as Watch The Spy Who Dumped Me 2018 dropped in dirt at a backyard barbecue is blithely dusted off and inhaled in three bites – it’s still a hot dog, and besides, you’re drunk – the flimsiest of film entertainments is met with the same shrug. The seats are cushy, the air-conditioning cold, MoviePass has lived to see another day (wait, lemme check my phone), and “big dumb fun” is now and forever the song of summer.

So when I say the instantly forgettable action-comedy The Spy Who Dumped Me is fine, I guess what I mean is: It’s fine. It’s not a debacle. It’ll do? There are infinitely better movies out there in the world, and also in the smaller circumference of Austin theatres right now, and I encourage you to scan our film reviews to find them.

But you want to know about this movie? Sure. Fine.

This movie opens with Scorpions’ “Wind of Change,” that heartfelt but cringey 1990 power ballad about the winding down of the Cold War. Its reason for being in this movie blew past me (it’s used to much better effect in Alex Holdridge’s In Search of a Midnight Kiss; incidentally, also a better movie). I guess maybe the song is playing on the sad jukebox where the sad Audrey (Kunis) is celebrating her sad birthday? Already driftless, Audrey is now depressed, too, ever since her live-in boyfriend Drew (Theroux) ended things via text. Said dumper – the title’s spy – we meet in the middle of a Lithuanian shootout that establishes early the film’s hard-R, uncartoonish, and surprisingly egalitarian philosophy of violence. (Lots of people get shot in the head here, and they’re not all bad guys!) Audrey doesn’t know about Drew’s day job as a CIA agent until the bullet spray relocates to her L.A. apartment, and from there she’s off to the races, on the run in Europe with her best friend Morgan (McKinnon, extending her patent on kooky), in possession of a highly coveted MacGuffin and unsure who to trust amidst an international array of spies, assassins, and Uber drivers.

Director Susanna Fogel put a lens on female friendship in her first feature, the 2014 indie Life Partners, and that is also The Spy Who Dumped Me’s primary interest. Kunis and McKinnon don’t exactly set the screen on fire with their chemistry, and there are only the most perfunctory shadings to their characters. Still, as the film hopscotches between foreign capitals, the action growing ever more ludicrous with each passport stamp, their friendship becomes the truest, weightiest thing about the film, especially when their level of intimacy is tested in a torture scene that turns out to be the film’s funniest set piece. Fogel and co-writer David Iserson also effectively mine lady-centric micro-jokes from Morgan’s conscious feminism and scene stealer Lolly Adefope as a textbook frenemy.

The other swings for comedy punch, or poke, along the spectrum, including the low-hanging fruit of a swinging nutsack sight gag and a death match played out before an unwitting audience in formal wear who confuse the fisticuffs with performance art. Their clueless applause reminded me of 1978’s Chevy Chase-Goldie Hawn accidentally-stepped-into-criminal-intrigue comedy Foul Play, while a tease of Henry Mancini’s "The Pink Panther Theme" score calls back to an even earlier era of capering comedy. But the movie this movie most recalls is Spy, Paul Feig’s 2015 comedy starring Melissa McCarthy, which betters The Spy Who Dumped Me not just in brevity of title but in execution. The bones are the same: Both films span action and comedy, spy parody and sincere female empowerment hoorahs, bonds of friendship tested and surprising inner resources tapped when staring peril in the face. But only one film boasts nuance, cleverness, a hero worth rooting for, memorable secondary characters, and a light touch with broad humor. The other film has a nutsack sight gag it deems so irresistibly funny it replays it in the closing credits.

C'est justement ce qu'est Riley (Jennifer Garner) : une victime. Son mari et sa fille ont �t� froidement assassin�s. Devant les largesses des policiers, des tribunaux et de la loi, elle d�cide de prendre les armes et de faire couler le sang pour que justice soit faite.

Depuis les exploits de Clint Eastwood et surtout de Charles Bronson dans les ann�es 70 avec la r�f�rence Death Wish, les films sur les vigilantisme sont devenus un genre � part enti�re. Il y en a eu d'excellents et de tr�s douteux. Peppermint se situe dans la seconde cat�gorie, n'embrassant gu�re de nuance dans son cheminement.

Bien que l'h�ro�ne ne prenne aucun plaisir � se venger, le sc�nario contestable valorise cette fa�on de se faire justice soi-m�me. Le personnage principal est l� pour aider les pauvres faibles sans d�fense (�cho � The Equalizer, en plus manipulateur) et le discours final d'un flic lui donne pratiquement l'absolution sur tous les crimes violents qu'elle a pu commettre. Et �a, c'est toujours dangereux dans une soci�t� o� l'acc�s aux armes � feu n'a jamais �t� aussi facile. Si au moins l'ensemble ne se prenait pas tant au s�rieux, on aurait pu se retrouver devant un divertissement d�lirant � la Mandyou Assassination Nation, qui marqueront � coup s�r ce mois de septembre.

M�me les sc�nes d'action laissent � d�sirer. thanostv un des sp�cialistes du genre, qui avait offert par le pass� The Gunman, From Paris with Love et surtout Banlieue 13. Ces s�quences tr�pidantes aux cascades omnipr�sentes manquent trop souvent de tension et d'originalit� (exception faite de l'introduction qui soutire un sourire), ne transcendant jamais ce qui s'est fait auparavant. Devant une histoire aussi mince et pr�visible, c'est souvent la qualit� de la mise en sc�ne qui fait toute la diff�rence. Pensons seulement � Quentin Tarantino qui a su �lever Kill Billou � John Wickqui est parvenu � sortir du lot avec ses exc�s de style. Il n'y a rien de tout �a au sein de cette s�rie B, si ce n'est ce sentiment de d�j� vu et de lassitude qui plombe rapidement le moral.

Sans doute que le r�alisateur �tait plus int�ress� par le cauchemar de sa protagoniste. Cela explique pourquoi, � l'image de l'in�gal In the Fade de Fatih Akin, il privil�gie sa qu�te jusqu'aux Enfers. Sauf que Jennifer Garner, aussi muscl�e et � l'aise soit-elle en surprenante veuve qui botte des culs, ne poss�de pas la m�me fougue tragique que Diane Kruger. Cela donne ainsi des passages plus maladroits o� l'�motion n'arrive pas toujours � ressortir correctement.

Un constat que l'on peut �galement porter sur les vis�es r�trogrades qui sont d�velopp�es ici sur le sentiment d'autojustice, o� tout est mis en oeuvre pour palper l'immoralit� des situations et flatter les plus bas instincts... mais sans livrer aucun discours justifiable sur, justement, cet �chec de la justice. Derri�re sa banalit�, Peppermint cache un arri�re-go�t qui le rend encore plus dommageable.

PLOT: The true story of cartoonist John Callahan, who was paralyzed as a young man following a drunken bender, but despite being quadriplegic, managed to become an acclaimed artist.

REVIEW: It?s been a lean few years for Gus Van Sant fans, with the director?s efforts mostly divided between well-meant flops like SEA OF TREES and journeyman work on something like PROMISED LAND. Having not made a real slam-dunk since MILK, DON?T WORRY, HE WON?T GET FAR ON FOOT marks a modest return to form, even if it?s a little too shaggy to take it?s place among his top tier efforts.

A long-gestating project, Van Sant, who also wrote (with the late Callahan himself getting a co-story credit) tries to shake up standard biopic conventions by adopting a confusing chronology that takes some getting used to. He cuts back and forth between Callahan in middle-age, to his early days paralyzed, to his last day being able to walk, with digressions in between. Given how thanostv ?s appearance changes throughout the film, this becomes a little confusing, with the changing styles and presidents suggesting it takes place over at least twenty years, but what?s happening when isn?t always clear. At one point, Callahan appears to relapse, but whether this happens in his pre-AA days or after is anyone?s guess.

Perhaps a re-edit away from being a truly good film, this current, Sundance version still has a lot about it that?s great - namely Callahan?s compelling story and the amazing performances. Phoenix is admirably toned down here, and at his most likable since HER as the flawed but good-hearted artist, who?s refreshingly low on the self-pity. Much of the film is devoted to his time in AA, and Jonah Hill, as his rich-kid, gay sponsor all but walks away with the film. Hill, as a character that?s funny but also has pathos and some grounded moments, effortlessly steps into the part, and while Phoenix is good, it?s Hill that already has people talking around Park City.

The AA-stuff is when the movie is at its best, and Van Sant has an easier time depicting the pseudo family-esque relationship between them (with Sonic Youth?s Kim Gordon and Udo Kier other members of his group) than Callahan?s personal life. The elliptical approach hurts the depiction of his romance with Rooney Mara?s character - with her playing a Scandinavian flight attendant he seemingly has an on-and-off relationship with. Jack Black, playing an acquaintance of Callahan?s, is worth singling out. He only has two scenes, but they?re among the best in the film - with their climactic scene a tough one to shake.

Initial reaction to this one out of Sundance has been decidedly mixed, but while it?s unwieldy and inconsistent in its current form, there?s a really good movie in there if the narrative is just put into a little more focus. As it is though, this is a strong actors showcase for all involved, and even if it goes out as is, it?s still one of Van Sant?s better recent films.

A title like the one on this Danish police thriller raises a question: Just who is the guilty party? Is it the cynical cop working Denmark?s equivalent of the 911 call centre? The man who just kidnapped a woman, leading to her frantic call? Maybe it?s writer/director Gustav M�ller, for clever use of distraction and deception?

One definite innocent party is the audience. The country?s submission for the foreign-language Oscar prize this year is nail-bitingly effective, and far too good to qualify as a mere guilty pleasure. It?s a straight-up pleasure, simple as that.

Jakob Cedergren stars as Asger, a burnt-out Copenhagen cop whose contemptuous view of human nature isn?t helped by the calls he takes. When someone reports being mugged by a female assailant in the red-light district, he assumes the victim is a John and lets him stew a while before sending help. To an injured cyclist calling for an ambulance: ?Take a taxi, and don?t bike when you?re drunk.?

Then there?s Iben (Jessica Dinnage). She seems reluctant to talk, and Asger quickly figures out it?s because she can?t. She? https://www.thanostv.org/movie/the-guilty-2018 in a car with her abductor, who thinks she?s on the phone to her daughter. Asger works by the book, learning what he can through yes-or-no questions, alerting local police to the situation, then sending cops to the woman?s home to comfort her daughter, who?s only six.

That would seem to be it for Asger ? his shift is about to end, and ambiguous comments suggest he has other worries; something about being in court the next day. But he can?t seem to let this case go. He starts playing detective, sending a colleague to investigate a lead. ?I assigned this to myself,? he says by way of explanation.

M�ller keeps us always in the same room as Asger, although for the purposes of cinematography and drama, he at one point switches offices and then draws the blinds, just as the plot darkens. But we never see any of the characters he is speaking to, and must rely on aural clues for information. Will you believe your ears? Or would that make you guilty of jumping to conclusions? The Guilty will keep you guessing.

Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween is a sequel to the 2015 offering, and although this one has a mostly different cast, it?s along the same lines as the previous one. This time, three kids who live in Wardenclyffe, New York, a small town in which Nicola Tesla built a tower that was a wireless transmission station, which one of said kids, Sonny (Jeremy Ray Taylor), happens to be fascinated by. The other one, Sam (Caleel Harris), is much less nerdy, and is trying to get a garbage disposal business off the ground, which leads them to the former of house of R.L. Stine (Jack Black), and an unfinished manuscript which he?d hidden away in the house at the beginning of his career.

Unfortunately (and, it has to be said, inexplicably), there?s watch goosebumps 2: haunted halloween 2018 -cookie sized piece of paper next to the book with an occult phrase on it that brings to life an evil ventriloquist?s dummy which fans of the books will recognise as Slappy, a fast-talking supernatural living doll that terrorises anybody who brings it to life. For those who haven?t read any of the books, Slappy is essentially Chuckie but for children.

So, Slappy comes to life, and this time he?s after something other than vengeance. Having been devoid of a family for his presumably long life, he decides he wants one; as a result of that, he gets the bullies off the childrens? backs, but things take a dark turn when their older sister Sarah (Madison Iseman) is cheated on by her boyfriend, and he ends up in the hospital. Unfortunately, Slappy uses Tesla?s tower to send out a signal which brings all of the halloween decorations in the town to life, and madness ensues.

To Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween?s credit, it does have an unusually ambitious story for a children?s film. Most film-makers would be satisfied with making a sub-par film and releasing it under the Goosebumps moniker, simply because they know that it would be a good financial investment. But the film franchise does have an interesting meta-narrative in which Stine is one of the protagonists of his own stories. It never gets too ambitious, but that does mean they knew who their audience was, and that having a House of Leaves level of complexity in the narrative would just leave them dumbfounded.

The film does have a sense of humour, too. Very often, Slappy has cheeky one-liners, like ?I love a good holiday sale? as he walks into a discount halloween store. Some of the horror sections are well-suited to this kind of film too, inasmuch as they aren?t really horror, but scenes of redemption, in which the kids are allowed to save the day.

That doesn?t mean the narrative is completely devoid of threat. There are some moments where the kids face their own mortality, even if they?re hinted at in a child-friendly way (talking pumpkins, giant Gummy Bears, that kind of thing), and there are other, more existential scares too ? losing your mother and having your reputation damaged in front of your classmates are very real concerns for the film?s target audience, and there?s nothing wrong with any of that.

Unfortunately, there are some problems with the film. Logically, the film?s narrative never really comes together. For instance, why would Stine have an incantation next to a novel in his own story? And why would Slappy need to transform the entire town into ghouls just to have a family?

That is, ultimately, the film?s downfall. In some respects, the filmmakers do treat their target audience as people who are able to understand nuanced concepts if they?re presented in the right way, and Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween does have a fair amount of bite for a PG-rated horror film, but the plot mechanics never quite come together, and it is also fairly predictable.

In terms of family films, you could do a lot worse this October than Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween. I do think parents will be pretty bored by it, but if you have children who are itching for a cinema trip during the spooky season, there have been much worse offerings in the past?just don?t expect it to have any staying power.

Have you seen Goosebumps 2? What are your thoughts? And did your children love it? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below!

Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween was released in the US on October 12, 2018 and the United Kingdom on October 19, 2018. For all international release dates see here.

/www.thanostv.org/movie/destination-wedding-2018">https://www.thanostv.org/movie/destination-wedding-2018 .com/images/2018Reviews/DestinationWedding2.jpg" alt="Destination Wedding 2018">

Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder reunite for their fourth joint big-screen outing, but this asinine insult comedy gives fans no reason to celebrate. The charismatic stars struggle with earache-inducing dialogue that reduces their characters to bile-spouting losers.

Is it worth $10? No

For moviegoers who grew up in the 1980s and '90s, their film diet would be incomplete without Keanu Reeves or Winona Ryder. Going through their body of work, what stands out is the actors' refusal to stick with one genre. Reeves' range as a performer, for instance, might not be wide, but the kinds of projects he's selected run the gamut from bone-crunching action to period dramas. And in addition to being Tim Burton's muse, Ryder has worked with some of the most iconic filmmakers, effortlessly shifting from pedigreed undertakings to lowbrow popcorn flicks, with often memorable, if uneven, results.

Say this for ?Destination Wedding,? an insult comedy masquerading as a rom-com that marks the stars' fourth collaboration in front of the camera: It doesn't attempt to milk their distinct screen presence for nostalgia's sake. This is not a trip down memory lane that keeps winking at viewers ?Stranger Things?-style. As it happens, it's one of the only positive things that can be said about this rancid groaner.

Writer-director Victor Levin introduces the pair in the most banal of meet-cute situations, as Frank (Reeves) and Lindsay (Ryder) wait to catch a flight to San Luis Obispo, California, to attend the titular event. Lindsay, a self-consciously neurotic bundle of nerves, calls Frank out when he none-too-subtly tries to cut in front in the line to board. He makes it clear he wants to get as far away from her as he possibly can. Let the battle-of-the-sexes bickering begin.

Wouldn't you know it? They end up sitting together in an eight-seat plane and are thus forced to interact with one another. Ryder, her face uncomfortably pinched for roughly 80 percent of the film's running time, bristles at Frank's cynicism and alpha-male posturing, especially once it becomes open knowledge that she was once engaged to the groom...who's Frank's half-brother. Thus ?Destination Wedding? reaches the 15-minute mark, with nearly 75 more to go.

Two things become apparent right away: There's a lot of dialogue, and very little of it sounds like words that would come out of people's mouths. Ryder fares better than her co-star; they both earn points for memorizing the cringe-inducing banter and trying to make it come across as amusing. (They fail.) The other thing that comes across is that there is almost zero interaction between their characters and anyone else. The rest of the cast is thus relegated to background noise, glorified extras who could have helped offset the feeling we're trapped in a jail cell with two self-absorbed basket cases who won't shut up.

Levin, a TV vet whose credits include ?The Larry Sanders Show? and ?Mad Men,? keeps the brittle putdowns coming. The characters' rapport recalls another of the filmmaker's small-screen projects: the Paul Reiser-Helen Hunt sitcom ?Mad About You.? But those stars had genuine charm to offset the tart one-liners. Reeves and Ryder are too busy reciting their implausibly verbose dialogue to establish any kind of tangible spark. It's not difficult to imagine Gary Oldman, their co-star in ?Bram Stoker's Dracula,? in full makeup recoiling in disgust at the verbal garlic cloves they are tasked to deliver here.

But just when you think it could not possibly get any worse, ?Destination Wedding? grabs a shovel and keeps on digging. Once they arrive to San Luis Obispo, Levin twists his narrative into a pretzel to put his protagonists in harm's way in the most inane way conceivable. Once they avert a date with the Grim Reaper, the mismatched duo, naturally, give in to their animal impulses. Levin stages Frank and Lindsay's outdoor hanky panky for laughs, but just when you think he'll allow physical humor to carry the scene, the characters continue their unending t�te-�-t�te in the middle of their coital relations. (This reviewer suddenly remembers Reeves' bare buttocks haven't been seen onscreen since that peek-a-boo glimpse in ?Devil's Advocate.? No such luck here, But I digress,) The sequence is an unsavory combination of tasteless and grating.

?Destination Wedding? is also saddled with the irony that it's set in an attractive, picturesque location, but despite an inclination for long shots, a rarity in comedies like this, the film's widescreen lensing is astonishingly drab and flat. In other words, there's no eye candy to distract viewers from the agony of enduring these deeply unpleasant individuals' unorthodox courtship.

?How much worse can things get?? says Lindsay at one point. Allow me to answer that question. ?Destination Wedding? is the kind of leaden romance that thinks deconstructing Keanu Reeves' penis is just darling. (Lindsay calls it ?balletically formed.? I wish I could be making this up.) It's all part of Levin's off-putting existentialism, his belief that what the world needs now is wasting two immensely likable performers in order to assault viewers with a toxic worldview the likes of which will likely send moviegoers running for the exits. This movie is the pits. RSVP ?hell no.?

Photos courtesy of Aviron Pictures and Robb Rosenfeld/Regatta, respectively.

NEW YORK (CNS) -- The sci-fi-themed horror tale "Phoenix Forgotten" (Cinelou) includes little objectionable material, other than some salty language in the dialogue. Yet the lack of any positive seasoning makes this reasonably wholesome dish (for grown-ups, at least) dull to the taste.

Largely as barren as the Arizona desert in which much of its action is set, the movie follows the efforts of Phoenix-bred filmmaker Sophie (Florence Hartigan) to make a documentary about the 1997 disappearance of her older brother, Josh (Luke Spencer Roberts).

In the immediate aftermath of the real-life, and widely reported, UFO sighting known as the "Phoenix Lights," Josh and two friends, Ashley (Chelsea Lopez) and Mark (Justin Matthews), set off for the wilderness in search of clues about that event. Though they vanished without a trace, a video camera with a cassette tape in it was discovered in their abandoned car.

Between Sophie's rough cuts and the playback of the missing trio's film, the tired "found footage" conceit is brought to bear. But even the immediacy ideally produced by that device could not alter the fact that the virtually bloodless proceedings in director and co-writer Justin Barber's feature debut -- penned with T.S. Nowlin -- fail to intrigue.

The imagery that crops up along the way to a partial explanation of what befell the pals includes the prophet Ezekiel's vision of interlocking wheels recorded in the first chapter of the Old Testament book named for him.

Any connection to scriptural faith is lacking, however. Instead, the "wheels within wheels" serve merely as a prop meant to establish a tenuous connection to the ancient past such as that sought in Erich von Daniken's 1968 volume, "Chariots of the Gods?" While idle, the use of this motif is in no way disrespectful.

Some parents may feel that the absence of gore -- apart from the sight of some ravaged wildlife -- makes " Phoenix Forgotten " acceptable for mature adolescents despite the vulgar vocabulary into which the characters sometimes lapse, especially when frightened.

The film contains at least one use of profanity and a milder oath, frequent crude and occasional crass language and unsettling images of dead animals. The Catholic News Service classification is A-III -- adults. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is PG-13 -- parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

The Austin Chronicle is on the staff of Catholic News Service.

Dull, though mostly harmless, sci-fi-themed horror tale in which, 20 years after they disappeared, the now-grown younger sister (Florence Hartigan) of one of a trio of teens (Luke Spencer Roberts, Chelsea Lopez and Justin Matthews) who vanished without a trace in the Arizona desert explores the connection between that event and a well-publicized (real-life) UFO sighting over the skies of Phoenix that took place shortly before. With the protagonist making a documentary about her search, and her subjects having left a videocassette tape of their activities behind, the tired "found footage" conceit is brought to bear. But even the immediacy ideally produced by that device could not alter the fact that the virtually bloodless proceedings in director and co-writer Justin Barber's feature debut fail to intrigue. Some parents may feel that the absence of gore -- apart from the sight of some ravaged wildlife -- makes the film acceptable for mature adolescents despite the vulgar vocabulary into which the characters sometimes lapse, especially when frightened. At least one use of profanity and a milder oath, frequent crude and occasional crass language, unsettling images of dead animals. The Catholic News Service classification is A-III -- adults. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is PG-13 -- parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

"Phoenix Forgotten" (Cinelou) -- Catholic News Service classification, A-III -- adults. Motion Picture Association of America rating, PG-13 -- parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

I saw Baby Driver in the theaters. Twice. I loved the music, the car scenes, the romance, the style. Wheelman takes its getaway driver, �Wheelman� (played by Frank Grillo) in a whole other direction.

It is dark and rough and fast � edge of your seat for the entire runtime fast. The whole first hour of the movie was filmed in the car. The viewpoint moves from the backseat to the front seat, sometimes focused on the outside scene (they are filming these outdoor scenes from inside of the car) and sometimes on Frank Grillo�s face. The movie is tense and intimate. It feels low budget, in a really good way.

Frank Grillo�s portrayal of �Wheelman� is gruff. He is less than one year out from serving a three-year prison sentence. We learn that he is trying to repay his debt to the group that �watched over his family� while he was in prison.

He�s all business on the job, but watch his voice and demeanor change when he speaks with his 13-year-old daughter, Katie. He is trying to re-establish himself in her life, but is not living up to the needs of that role.

I don�t want to spoil even a second of this movie. I went in only knowing that my teenager really likes Frank Grillo from his work as Crossbones in the Captain America movies. I came out a full-on Frank Grillo fan.

So, instead of spoiling the story line, let me share some cool things I learned from the Q&A session that Grillo and writer/director Rush did after the screening that I went to:

Wheelmanwas filmed over 18 nights, in Boston, working/filming for ten hours a night. ThanosTV of those nights kept Frank Grillo in the car for eight hours straight.

The movie seriously earned its R rating with an impressive 286 uses of the word �fuck!�

A lot of the dialogue took place through phone conversations. Grillo was talking with a reader, instead of the actual actor onscreen, requiring lots of make believe and great acting for reactions.

Frank Grillo did 85% of his own driving in the movie. He was so physically and emotionally exhausted after making this film that he had to pull out of his next scheduled role to rest.

There was an incident that occurred while filming the (best scene ever) motorcycle scene leading to a real-time reaction by Frank. (I cannot wait until Friday when this comes out on Netflix and I can watch it again!)

Jeremy Rush � the 39-year-old writer and director of Wheelman � was a Production Assistant writing scripts on the side. He kept showing people his work and caught the attention of Frank Grillo. There was little improvisation, because the scripting was really just so good.

Frank Grillo is trained as a fighter and has been fighting for a long time. He is known to make friends on location with other fighters at gyms. He is currently is working on another collaboration with Netflix, to show the culture and brotherhood of fighting that he feels goes above race or religion. The project has him traveling from country to country, learning about each country�s specialty fighting techniques, while interacting with the people in the gym. He has (so far) traveled to Brazil, Mexico, Senegal, Thailand and Myanmar working on this project.

As a final note, I called my dad on my drive home, to let him know that I had just watched what I suspect will be his new favorite movie, possibly dethroning Taken. We already have plans to watch it together this Friday.

 Delicious Fresh Baked Cookies from David's Cookies. All different sizes and flavors!

The poster for ? A Review by David Nusair ? amputates its human characters just above the waist, focusing our attention instead on the collection of adorable canines assembled at their feet: a pug in a pizza box, a giant Labradoodle with a shoe in its mouth, a Chihuahua wearing a pink vest and helmet, and so on. ?Forget the people. See this movie for its four-legged characters,? the campaign might as well be saying, and yet, the dogs in ?Dog Days? serve as little more than man?s best plot devices, conveniently heart-swelling critters designed to spark interactions between their otherwise bland owners and friends in this ingratiating ensemble comedy.

Then again, what else would you expect from a movie called ?Dog Days? Mark Reviews Movies falls squarely in the dump month of August, amid those summer doldrums when temperatures rise and the quality of megaplex offerings dips? It?s as if the folks who packaged this low-concept crowd-pleaser targeted this time of year knowing that people expect the movies to be bad, setting out to leave them pleasantly surprised rather than reaching for greatness and falling short, as so many others do.

Set in Los Angeles, this overstuffed, sitcom-style group effort resembles those holiday-themed laffers Garry Marshall churned out over the final decade of his career, dogs like ?Mother?s Day? and ?New Year?s Eve? in which a bunch of beautiful but otherwise unremarkable characters try to sort out their relationship problems over the span of a long two hours. Like Marshall, actor-turned-helmer Ken Marino (?How to Be a Latin Lover?) hails from the world of television, and his single-camera directorial style favors quippy interactions on overlit soundstages, where it feels as if he?s serving up the funniest of half a dozen possible jokes the cast ad-libbed in each situation (the end credits are full of the runners-up that didn?t make the cut, including several ?Shih Tzu? puns parents will be none too pleased to hear their kids repeating around the house).

United by the fact that they all see the same vet, the main characters include a heartbroken morning-show host named Elizabeth (Nina Dobrev, who appears to be channeling every cute look actress Emily Mortimer ever gave on camera); barista Tara (?High School Musical? star Vanessa Hudgens), who?s so smitten with Dr. Mike (Michael Cassidy) that she ignores over-eager coffee-shop regular Garrett (Jon Bass); and irresponsible garage-band frontman Dax (Adam Pally), whose very pregnant sister (Jessica St. Clair) forces him to dog-sit while she goes into labor. The characters? animal companions factor in, although their primary role is to supply an obligatory whimper or sad-eyed cutaway whenever a gentle ?aww? is needed from the audience.

Elissa Matsueda and Erica Oyama?s script also provides a few kids for younger viewers to latch on to, including 16-year-old pizza delivery boy Tyler (Finn Wolfhard of ? Movie Review: ?DOG DAYS? is a ?bone?-a fide sensation � FreshFiction.tv ?), who helps a widowed English professor (Ron Cephas Jones of ?This Is Us?) look for his lost pug, and Amelia (newcomer Elizabeth Phoenix Caro), the recently adopted daughter of Rob Corddry and Eva Longoria?s characters, who happens to find the stray dog. Nearly all the remaining roles go to comedians (such as Tig Notaro and Lauren Lapkus), which helps to keep viewers laughing, even as nothing particularly original is happening in the main storylines (someone to watch: Phoebe Neidhardt as a meteorologist with a tendency to over-share on air).

At one point, Tara grouses that she?s not doing anything meaningful with her life, and Garrett points out that she brightens people?s mornings. ?Dog Days? may not be grand, change-the-world filmmaking, but it is funny and kinda sweet in spots. There are certainly worse ways to enjoy the air conditioning than watching a handful of chipper comedians throw a fundraiser to save an animal shelter ? an event that conveniently ties together half a dozen plot strands engaging with everything from dating and adoption to childbirth and coping with the death of a spouse. Alas, the behaviors on display have virtually nothing to do with real life, limiting the experience to little more than empty escapism for the dog lover in all of us.

SYNOPSIS: Trying to start a new life after being stalked, Sawyer Valentini (Claire Foy) relocates from Boston to Pennsylvania. When she makes an appointment with a therapist at Highland Creek Behavioural Center, Sawyer finds that she has unknowingly signed her consent to stay in voluntary commitment for 24 years. She meets fellow inmates Violet (Juno Temple), who is antagonistic and violent and sympathetic Nate (Jay Pharoah), recovering from an opioid addition. When she sees staff member George Shaw (Joshua Leonard), she believes him to be her stalker. Is he really her stalker, or is she delusional? She reaches out to her mother Angela (Amy Irving) to come to Pennsylvania to help. Review by Louise Keller:Real or fabrication? Plaiting themes of obsession and control into an intriguing package of psychological mind games, this electric thriller from Steven Soderbergh is a ripper. Shot on an iPhone and edited and scored with apple technology, Soderbergh has created an intense and intimate film that keeps us engaged and on edge throughout. Claire Foy's dazzling portrayal of the protagonist Sawyer Valentini ensures we are with her every step of the way, as she toggles from control to submission and back, wearing her heart on her sleeve all the while. It is her vulnerability that draws us to her.Beautifully directed, the film looks fabulous and Jonathan Bernstein and James Greer's sharp, concise screenplay brings together the elements. The repetitive nature of the jarring soundtrack is unnerving. The film begins with vignettes in which we watch how Sawyer handles various situations: a difficult client, a critical colleague, a boss wanting to take advantage and her mother. Control turns to irrationality during an online dating encounter. Revelations to a counselor at the Highland Creek Behavioural Center puts everything into context.Then the nightmare begins as Sawyer is detained and restrained. It is a terrifying experience. The clock ticks slowly. https://www.thanostv.org/movie/unsane-2018 are stark and harsh. The shadows are longer. Is the stalker still stalking her? Or is she crazy? Joshua Leonard is suitably enigmatic as staff member George Shaw, instilling enough doubt in our minds. It is a role that Robin Williams might have played years ago. The scenes in which medication is dispensed are reminiscent of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Then there are Sawyer's inmates. Juno Temple is formidable as violent, psychotic Violet, with cornrow tresses and Jay Pharoah (Saturday Night Live) is likeable as Nate, who offers Sawyer support. As Sawyer's anxious mother, Soderbergh has recruited Amy Irving, who he directed in Traffic (2000).Soderbergh manages the reality and backstory seamlessly as the flashback scenes provide context and the exposition flows naturally. The tension builds throughout and the climactic crescendo does not disappoint. A gripping, edge of seat experience.If you have seen Claire Foy as the Queen in the Netflix series The Crown, you will appreciate the range of this extraordinary actress.

A first-generation Norwegian teen clashes with the traditional values and expectations of her Pakistani �migr� parents in the compelling coming-of-age drama ?What Will People Say,? from director-writer Iram Haq. Like her feature debut ?I Am Yours,? Haq?s sophomore work smartly probes the problems of a character caught between cultures, while the nuanced screenplay once again draws on her own harrowing life experience. Audiences and critics alike should say good things about ?People.? The kinetically shot film brims with authenticity and immediacy and benefits from a deeply sympathetic turn from sublime discovery Maria Mozhdah as the lead. Niche arthouse play looks likely in many territories.

The story unfolds in three acts. When we first meet her, pretty 16-year-old Nisha (Mozhdah) is living a double life. Outside the home, she appears to be a normal, well-adjusted, Western values-oriented high-school girl who hangs out with friends, shoots hoops, dances at clubs and flirts with boys; she?s even unafraid to sample a little alcohol and weed. Meanwhile, at home, she pays lip service to the role of dutiful Pakistani daughter, greeting friends and relatives in Urdu and passing around home-cooked delicacies. Her sour, nagging mother (Ekavali Khanna) constantly worries about how the rest of the community regards their family and her perhaps too-assimilated daughter, but since bright, destined-to-be-a-doctor Nisha is the apple of her father (Adil Hussain), Mirza?s, eye, she can get away with a lot. Thus, she finds time to slip out and join her friends, but always slips back to bed before dad performs his nightly check on his sleeping children.

One night, Nisha takes a big chance by allowing her handsome boyfriend Daniel (Isak Lie Harr) to follow her back to her room. By Norwegian standards, she?s doing nothing wrong, just a little cuddling and kissing, but when her father discovers them, he goes ballistic and beats the two youngsters. Norwegian social services takes Nisha into protective custody while her parents continue to trumpet their belief that she has lost her virginity and destroyed their honor. The local Pakistani community circles around, unanimous in their criticism. They advise Nisha?s father that he must make an example of her with a punishment so strong that none of their offspring would dare to make the same mistake.

Nisha misses the warmth of her family and is all too eager to make up with them. When her mother calls and says that they want her to come home to discuss matters, she believes it?s true. But when her father and brother (Ali Arfan) come to pick her up, they have another destination in mind ? her aunt?s home, some 200 miles outside Islamabad.

The second act takes place in Pakistan, where Nisha has been brought and left against her will. Her aunt (Sheeba Chaddha) is harsh with her, making her work around the house and in the kitchen. She tolerates no rebellion, locking Nisha in a closet when she tries to contact friends through an internet caf�. Her uncle (Lalit Parimoo) burns her Norwegian passport and warns her that if she attempts such communication again, her father will marry her to a peasant and she will have to spend the rest of her life milking buffalos. Eventually, though traumatized, Nisha settles down and finds some pleasure in exploring her parents? culture ? but scandal seems to find her despite her best intentions.

The second act further proves that ?People? is no run-of-the-mill coming-of-age story. While out one night with her cousin, Amir (Rohit Saraf), Nisha endures an encounter with the police so shocking it? https://www.thanostv.org/movie/what-will-people-say-2017 to believe that Haq could bear to put it on film. She stages the scene so powerfully that it takes the audience?s breath away. Afterward, poor wronged Nisha once again receives the blame for actions that were no fault of her own, and that lead to even stronger attempts by her family to control her.

Although one may argue that the character of Nisha?s father transforms too easily from doting dad to tyrant, Haq definitely makes him a complex and conflicted character. The director clearly conveys the love that exists between father and daughter,but which cannot end happily because of the wide gulf between their cultures.

Impressively lensed in Norway, Sweden, Germany and India (Rajasthan stands in for Nisha?s father?s ancestral home), ?People? represents a big step up from Haq?s more modestly scaled debut, but it?s a move she handles with assurance and aplomb. She develops the father-daughter relationship visually as well as verbally, showing the action from both their perspectives. The film is also attuned to the small glances and movements of the supporting characters, which carry more weight than words.

On ne va pas s?�tendre sur ce cinqui�me opus de la franchise. Si le premier TAXI avait le m�rite de la nouveaut�, avec ce petit c�t� franchouillard faisant du second degr� sur l? ThanosTV des bagnoles made in USA, et aussi celui d?avoir fait conna�tre Marion Cotillard dans ses premi�res oeuvres, ce TAXI 5 frise le palmar�s en terme de m�diocrit�!

Entre le vomi, le scato et le mauvais go�t pur et simple (sans doute un hommage aux com�dies am�ricaines qui aiment en abuser), TAXI 5 nous offre aussi des dialogues indigents, des gags foireux en veux-tu en voil�, des r�flexions machistes en pleine crise Weinstein (la comparaison des filles et des bagnoles a fait long feu) et un sc�nario inexistant. M�me les sc�nes d?action sont quelconques.

Que demander de plus � Frank Gastambide (LA SURFACE DE REPARATION) qui est derri�re la cam�ra, devant aussi et surtout au sc�nario? enfin, comme il n?y en a pas, ce dernier point se discute. La seule chose � faire serait d?�viter de perdre son argent en salle mais l?on sait qu?h�las, ce TAXI 5 risque en plus de faire des entr�es.

Et si l?on en croit le m�chant italien du film qui jette � Sylvain Marot un ?on se reverra? � la fin du film, on risque m�me d?avoir un Taxi 6.

It's starting to seem as though �movies taking place entirely on a computer screen� is going to be the new �found footage.� We've already had Open Windows, Unfriended, and its sequel, Unfriended: Dark Web. Now comes Searching, a film that refines the gimmick, making it sleeker while also figuring out a way to amp up the human element. This is a very good picture that might have been even better with one different casting choice.

The affecting prelude is sort of like a Windows version of the montage from Pixar's Up that takes us through the courtship and marriage of Carl and his wife, ending with her passing. In this case, David Kim (John Cho) is flipping through pictures and videos on his computer, tracking how his daughter Margot has grown and remembering his late wife Pam (Sara Sohn). He gets to a point where the sadness overtakes him, and he stops.

With that backstory in place, the plot kicks in. The now teenage Margot (Michelle Liu) FaceTimes David, then hangs up rather abruptly. She's supposedly at a study group, yet never comes home and doesn't answer her phone. David files a missing persons report with the police. Debra Messing plays Rosemary Vick, the detective leading the investigation into her disappearance. She encourages him to provide information about Margot's friends, interests, and lifestyle, so he gets into her computer. Using Facebook, YouCast, Google Maps, and more, he begins looking for clues. In the process, David learns that she had a secret, one he didn't even have the slightest inkling about.

Director/co-writer Aneesh Chaganty does a very smart thing � he ignores the temptation to tell the story in real time, as other computer-set thrillers have done. Searching sometimes jumps from one thing to the next, suggesting that time has passed and David has been away from the computer for a little while. That gives the movie a quicker pace, since we don't have to wade through mundane moments waiting for the next big thrill.

Authentic use of websites and apps also contributes to the excitement. Searching feels real because it utilizes stuff that most of us use. More than that, the film gets at how much of our personal lives we put online. Through his exploration of Margot's various accounts, David comes to learn things about her that he was unaware of, and he realizes that he's been an unobservant father to some degree. You might be surprised how emotional the film can be. Much credit for that goes to John Cho, who gives a heartfelt performance that usually has him acting by himself.

Searching's mystery is constructed like the interior of a clock. The last five minutes or so unravel the whole thing, illustrating how all the clues we knew about fit together with the ones we didn't even realize were clues. Everything adds up, with no noticeable plot holes. Searching review: absurd browser-based thriller fails to click 's impressively designed.

The one area where the film falters is in the casting of Debra Messing. She's the total wrong choice for Detective Vick. Although certainly talented, the actress lacks the kind of gravitas needed to pull off this take-charge character, which proves slightly detrimental to Searching as a whole. This is a part that someone like Julianne Moore or Naomi Watts could have knocked out of the park.

In every other regard, though, Searching works. FAMILY MOVIE REVIEW INFORMATION FOR PARENTS AND KIDS -biting mystery and a touching father-daughter tale are combined with an offbeat storytelling style, and the result is an insightful look at how our online identities can either hurt or help our relationships with those we love the most.

( out of Shadows on the Wall )