I probably talked about it in detail here before, but you didn't miss much. I liked the first one, but this one was just really boring and nonsensical. It tries to be everything at once - a goofy comedy, a superhero film, a PG-13 Se7en... it's a mess, and not even a fun one.

Oh, I can think of a few. The African Queen is the most obvious one, since Jungle Cruise almost feels like a modern riff on that film (and if that's not a sad reflection on modern cinema then I don't know what is).

There's also The River Wild, although it doesn't take place in a jungle but in American wilderness. Still, it's a really great adventure film, with some wonderfull cinematography. That IMDB score is ridiculously low in my opinion.

And there's The Naked Jungle with Charlton Heston. No cruises in this one, but still a great classic adventure/romance jungle film.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife.

Had me reeling between excited ten year old on sugar binge to weepy nostalgic.

Def try it if a fan of the originals (and 80s big name "kids films" in general). Think I got a little more out of it having rewatched the original two the other night though.

I literally just watched it. Very good film, though I have to say it's really the last 30 minutes or so that elevates it from being just "ok". For much of the movie before that I wasn't really emotionally invested, and the movie dragged in a few places, but the build up to the duel is great in that last 30-40 minutes, and not knowing who would win I was really on the edge of my sit.

Acting wise, the movie really surprised me - I'm not a big fan of Matt Damon, to say hte least, but I think he was really good in this, while Ben Affleck whom I quite like (both as an actor and a director) felt quite unconvincing and miscast to me.

Overall, it's no Gladiator or The Duellists, or even Kingdom of Heaven, but it is leagues better than Robin Hood.

Interesting thank you very much, I definitely was under a misapprehension then. I wasn't aware that the whole industrial espionage element carried greater weight in the book. And I'm glad to hear, or at least it sounds like the kids aren't such an emphasis in the book. As much as I love Jurassic Park, the kids unfortunately form the least interesting part of the film (except for the kitchen scene)

And Apocalypse Now of course :)

Thank you I wasn't aware of that 1st and last one and will make a mental note to track them down at some stage. But yes, the 6.4/10 rating for The River Wild is bizarre. It's a great adventure film.

If you haven't seen it, you might want to check out the original Westworld. It was written and directed by Crichton, and obviously it shares a lot of basic premise with Jurassic Park - the futuristic amusement park where the main attraction gets out of control and starts murdering the guests. And it was the first movie ever to use digital image processing. There's also a lot to be said about Yul Brynner's android character being the inspiration for the Terminator.

To be perfectly honest... I hate that one. It's too long (even in non-extended version), pretentious as hell, and not nearly as smart as it wants to be.

And David Strathairn is really fantastic in it. He's such an underrated actor. I mean, he's carrier is surely enviable as it is, but I think he should have been a major a star as, say, Harrison Ford.

Yeah at one point I was planning on seeing it, but I think Omega Man (1971) derailed me a bit. As in I didn't really enjoy it as much as I hoped I would, so it dampened my interest for fantasy/sci-fi films of the era. I think I attempted to watch Soylent Green as well at the time.

I think that film would've really baffled me had I not read Heart of Darkness first, because it makes for a pretty bizarre war film, which is not what it's supposed to be. Instead it's a re-framing of Heart of Darkness in the Vietnam war setting, and it fascinates me that they managed to pull it off (to my mind). To me the book was an intense and difficult read, but I loved it, and I think that heavily influences my enjoyment of the film.
One element I like for example, which is also in the novel, is that what they encounter seem to make less sense the further up the river they travel. From a 'standard' assault on an a Vietcong position, to Playboy bunnies to that military outpost under attack where no-one seems to know, or care what is going on.
It's a strange film, but it's nowhere on the radar as far as actual war movies go.

I agree. It's been quite a few years now since I've watched them, but I remember really enjoying the first two films, and that's without any nostalgia, as I have not seen them as a kid. It's like you said, they feel genuine, Pat Morita is awesome, and while it's not some great cinema, it's solid, well done entertainment. I actually like the second movie even more than the first, the stakes feel higher, it feels a bit more daring than the first and more unique for ditching the high school setting.

The third film isn't terrible or anything, it's just sort of a weaker, blander re-hash of the first film. Not really a film I'd recommend, but it's an ok one-time watch to complete the trilogy.

Yes, the first 2/3 of the movie are really slow, but need it to comprehend the third and final act. The final conbat was great and visceral. Yet, I have to disagree with you on one point, I liked Affleck's performance, think was really good, not for an Oscar but really good.

Lost Highway (1997)
Don't understand a thing, I like David Lynch movies and Twin Peaks is among my favorite series of all time, but often end up confuse every time I watch something from him, but I think that sensation of lost is what have the touch, because after some thinking the movie kind of sense... Except Mulholland Drive.

Sneakers (1992)

What a strange experience that was. While watching the movie I paused for a moment to look up something on BBC news website, and I saw a headline about the death Sidney Poitier's death. What made it so strange is that he was part of the all star cast of the movie I was watching. Felt a bit... eerie, having him on my screen, frozen in a sliver of 1992 at the exact moment of reading about his passing.

Anyway, as for the film itself, it's ok, but hardly great. Really it would be a mediocre crime flick if not for the cast. In addition to Poitier it stars Robert Redford, David Strathairn, Dan Aykroyd, Ben Kingsley and James Earl Jones. Frankly I'm kind of amazed a movie this unremarkable got a cast this great. Ther certainly elevate the material, and while the story is bare bones and predictable, simply watching them all together is a treat. Strathairn in aprticular is great as the blind sound expert, and Poitier is the perfect straight man for the zanier members of the crew.

But really, if you want to see Poitier at his best, I highly recommend In the Heat of the Night. Made over 50 years ago, it's still one of the sharpest, smartest, best acted crime films I've ever seen.

Sing 2.

I was hooked by the trailer because still haven't found what I'm lookin' for is one of my favorite songs but I never watched sing 1. So I watched it. It was OK. I liked sing 2 a lot more. It introduces some characters I'm hoping to see more of in sing 3. So yeah not much else to say.

Mrs Crawly deserves her own film. That is all.

"pew! pew! pew!-pew! pew!"

Silverado,

it definitely wasn't a perfect movie but it took a chill approach as it built up characters in a well done way leading to the gun battles you'd expect from a wild west movie. And despite protagonists being extremely skilled, they do miss etc.

I'm usually not a fan of wild west movies but I liked this, I didn't even explicitly plan to watch this, just showed up on netflix and I casually checked it out and got hooked.

The Matrix Resurrections

So why exactly is everyone so mad? I mean, it's not great, but it's way, waaay better than Reloaded and Revolutions. In fact, the first hour (maybe a little less), is pretty great. In all honesty, it might be the smartest the Matrix has ever been. Not only does it serve as a pretty funny and clever metatextual commentary on the Matrix franchise itself and franchises in general, but it actually is a very effective hour (minus the opening action sequence) that questions reality and perception of it way better than the previous films ever did. In fact, if the film as whole commited to this kind of storytelling and this ambiguity over whether the previous events in the series actually happened or not, it could have been a truly fascinating film, an example of a franchise boldly reinventign itself while remaining true it's original central theme.

Unfortunately, after that first hour it devolves into a predictable action blockbuster, rather unremarkable except for a few scenes and ideas, and as it goes on it only makes less and less sense. What saves it then, and makes it even in that latter hour and a half more entertaining than the previous two sequels, is that this is still probably the most relatable and human that Neo ever felt as a protagonist, and even the story kinda falls apart, the stakes remain much more personal than the epic but bland and uninteresting "fate of everything".

In terms of acting Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Ann Mosse are probably the best they've ever been in any Matrix film, but the abscence of Laurence Fishbourne and Hugo Weaving is felt strongly, particularly the latter as our new supposed agent Smith feels particularly bland and fails to channel anything of Weaving's performance that made Smith such an iconic villain.

Overall, it's a clear case of wasted potential, but that a fourth Matrix film even shows this much potential at all is quite remarkable in itself, and it's not unentertaining. I can't help but feel that fans decided to be angry about this one before ever watching it, because being angry about sequels is just what we do now.

Demolition Man (1993)

Since it is right now coming from the TV, I decided to (re-)watch it on the side while sitting on my computer, since I used to have a crush on Sandra Bullock back when I (and she) was young. Yep she still looks hot, back in 1993 at least.

It is always kinda funny to look at movies from decades ago that depict what the world will be like "today", e.g. Demolition Man takes place in 2032, 10 years from now. Ok so we don't have futuristic toilets without toilet paper (except in Japan maybe) or all people wearing similar odd uniforms (except in North Korea) etc...

...but it just occurred to me that in one thing the movie hit quite close to the home. The movie makes fun of it being illegal to use foul language, you get automatically fined if you do so, ha ha so funny that could never happen...

...except what is all this discussion nowadays about hate speech, microaggressions, in Canada new legislation of it being a crime to use wrong pronouns for other people etc.?

Shit, the future is here! <"Beep! 100 credits fine for foul language!">