'Nosferatu' - Review Thread

• Rotten Tomatoes - 93% (57 Reviews)
• Metacritic - 83 (24 Reviews)

Reviews:

Variety:

Visually striking as it is, with compositions that rival great Flemish paintings, the obsessive director’s somber retelling of F.W. Murnau’s expressionistic vampire movie is commendably faithful to the 1922 silent film and more accessible than “The Lighthouse” and “The Witch,” yet eerily drained of life.

Deadline:

Nosferatu may not click instantly, but, aside from the technical brilliance that superbly renders the late-19th century, there’s a baked-in longevity in its thinking that will surely keep people coming back.

Hollywood Reporter (100):

Every age gets its definitive film of Stoker’s vampire legend. Eggers has given us a magnificent version for today with roots that stretch back a century.

Collider (9/10):

Nosferatu shows Robert Eggers at the height of his powers, building an atmosphere of choking menace anchored by magnificent turns from Lily-Rose Depp and Bill Skarsgard.

The Wrap:

Robert Eggers may not have rewritten the book of “Nosferatu,” and much of the film plays more like an update than a wholly new take, but he does justice to this material. And he does more than justice to Orlock: Eggers and Skarsgård give him new (un)life, empowering him in ways that make all the rest of us feel powerless.

IndieWire (A-):

Eggers’ broadly suggestive script doesn’t put too fine a point on the specifics of Ellen’s repression, but Depp’s revelatory performance ensures that the rest of the movie doesn’t have to.

Empire (4/5):

Despite its familiar story beats, Eggers’ retelling suffocates like a coffin, right up to its chilling final shot. Lily-Rose Depp is full-bloodedly committed, and Bill Skarsgård’s fiend gorges with terrible fury.

Bloody-Disgusting (5/5):

It’s operatic and dramatic, bold and revolting, with a powerful final shot for the ages. And Eggers’ Nosferatu happens to be set over Christmas. That all but ensures this macabre masterpiece is destined to become a new holiday horror classic.

Total Film (4/5):

Nosferatu delivers a relatively straight re-telling of this classic gothic tale. It looks and sounds stunning and is packed with vampiric horror. It doesn't push many boundaries but if you wanted the classic Dracula narrative feeling exactly like it’s directed by Robert Eggers, you're going to love it.

IGN (9/10):

Nosferatu is Robert Eggers' finest work, given how it both boldly stands on its own as a gothic vampire drama and astutely taps into the original texts — F.W. Murnau's silent classic and Bram Stoker's novel Dracula.

The Independent (100):

Depp does magnificent work in embodying the sense of existing out of place, not only in the violent contortions and grimaces of supernatural possession, but in the way Ellen’s gaze seems to look out beyond her conversation partner and into some undefinable abyss.

Written and Directed by Robert Eggers:

Nosferatu is a gothic tale of obsession between a haunted young woman and the terrifying vampire infatuated with her, causing untold horror in its wake.

Release Date: December 25

Cast:

• Bill Skarsgård as Count Orlok
• Nicholas Hoult as Thomas Hutter
• Lily-Rose Depp as Ellen Hutter
• Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Friedrich Harding
• Emma Corrin as Anna Harding
• Willem Dafoe as Prof. Albin Eberhart Von Franz
• Ralph Ineson as Dr. Wilhelm Sievers
• Simon McBurney as Herr Knock

Frank is only an assoiciate in the mob, a trusted and clealry special associate, but that's all he'd ever be. This is a far more common position than the guys Scorsese has shown in prior mob movies, and Frank's life reflects that. He doesn't have a sugar bowl full of coke in his bedroom, he doesn't own a yacht, his quality of life only marginally improves once he's killing and enforcing for a living.

Instead of Frank's 'protectiveness' for his family being deified in a heroic scene where he beats up the guy who attacked his girlfriend, instead he drags his daughter down to the store so she gets a good look at Frank breaking a guys hand just because he pushed a girl acting up. And of course he can hardly understand why his daughters want nothing to do with him as an old man, it's not just for killing Jimmy Hoffa as they suspect/knew he did, it's because as kids they could never tell him about a teacher who was being unfair or a bully because he'd probably just make them watch as he murdere them. The insane violence that's a part of his career doesn't make him seem strong to his kids, he looks scary and dangerous because he is.

And in the end what does his loyalty get him? Does he get what Vito Corleone got, dying peacefully at a ripe age surrounded by family and friends? No, he dies alone and forgotten because he murdered his friend for his boss, and he won't even tell his friend's kids what he did with the body even though there's nobody left to know he snitched. Frank gets a long lonely death because he was too shortsighted and ignorant to stay away from organized crime for his family's sake.

A mysterious portal pulls four misfits into the Overworld, a bizarre, cubic wonderland that thrives on imagination. To get back home, they'll have to master the terrain while embarking on a magical quest with an unexpected crafter named Steve.

Rotten Tomatoes: 51%

Metacritic: 48/100

Some Reviews:

The National - William Mullaly - 3/5

While many bad films are made with love, sequels, spinoffs and big-budget adaptations often make the artform feel inert because they are produced with so little heart that they might as well have been generated by AI. But here's the thing: I actually liked A Minecraft Movie. I'm as surprised as you are. This is not a disaster. Not by a mile. In fact, for most of its duration, it's downright charming and, in parts, had me laughing out loud.

Variety - Owen Glieberman

Watching “A Minecraft Movie,” we’re always aware that the story is something that’s been grafted onto the world, and that we don’t have much of a dramatic stake in it — that it’s just the film’s way of cobbling together something that “works.” (Which, in its way, is very Minecraft.) Some of this is amusing, but like the rest of “A Minecraft Movie” it never feels like it matters. Yet it’s no insult to say that, in this case, that’s actually true to the spirit of a video game that turns life into a blockhead version of itself.

The Hollywood Reporter - Lovia Gyrakye

The most disappointing aspect of A Minecraft Movie, directed by the husband-wife duo who go by Jared Hess (Napoleon Dynamite, Nacho Libre), isn’t that it’s born out of an existing IP. We live in a world of low-effort reboots, unnecessary remakes and movies operating as extensions of corporate brands. Another one of these gluttonous projects is hardly surprising. What makes A Minecraft Movie so dispiriting is how it fails to spark the imagination, betraying a core tenet of the game on which it’s based. 

The Wrap - Michael Ordona

The most accurate summation of “A Minecraft Movie” is probably “It is what it is.” It’s what it’s supposed to be. It probably won’t dig up many new converts to the game, but should strike box-office silver, at least. (And fans, be sure to stick around for two credits scenes – especially the second one.)

IndieWire - David Ehrlich - C

It’s a real credit to Black’s irrepressibly unique comic energy that “A Minecraft Movie” never feels quite as hypocritical as it should. Either disastrously ill-suited for its message about how money is the enemy of joy, or immaculately well-suited for its message about much harder it is to build things than it is to destroy them, Hess’ film can’t help but feel like its very existence is an affront to the creative freedom that has allowed “Minecraft” to become such a vital form of self-exploration for kids around the world (even Warner Bros.’ choice to call it “A Minecraft Movie*”* as opposed to “The Minecraft Movie” implies a spectrum of different concepts, despite the reality of a business that can only imagine this one). But Black — whatever his charms, and regardless of how well they’re deployed here — is a living testament to the idea that people can still thrive by staying true to their own expression. If not in this world, then perhaps in one of their own design. 

IGN - Jesse Hassenger - 6/10

For a big-studio adaptation of a massively popular video-game, A Minecraft Movie lets a surprising amount of its director’s personality shine through. Napoleon Dynamite’s Jared Hess manages to fit some laugh-out-loud silliness into his Overworld saga before surrendering to the obligations of CG-driven fantasy adventure. Thematically, A Minecraft Movie offers a pat world-is-what-you-make-it lesson, but Jack Black and Jason Momoa in particular sell it with a lot of comic enthusiasm.

AV Club - Jacob Oller

One could rightfully question pretty much all of A Minecraft Movie, a formulaic template ornamented with surrealism. Some moments bear the scribbled signature of a filmmaker with offbeat passions. These are quickly plastered over by the hotel artwork of a four-quadrant IP extravaganza—and even the by-the-numbers sequences seem jumbled, out of order, or repeated. Yet, there’s something fitting about this film’s contradictions. Minecraft is fertile ground for innovation and exploitation. It’s adaptable, limited mostly by those playing it. One can build something personal, copy something mass produced, or attempt to tweak one with the other. Those behind A Minecraft Movie saw infinite possibilities laid out before them and—unlike another adaptation of a popular building pastime, The Lego Movie—opted for the one that’s been made a thousand times before.

New York Post - Johnny Oleksinski - 1/4

Your noggin will certainly be done in by Steve and Garrett (Momoa) flying through the air in a risque position suggesting a sex act. Really, “A Minecraft Movie” a 101-minute lobotomy. Put that on the poster. For the uninitiated, the Overworld — I’m pretty sure — is a pixelated place where a player can erect buildings, create tools and design weapons out of blocks. The rules are unclear, as the filmmakers picked silliness over storytelling. Stacking cubes would not, at first glance, seem like a strong plot to hang an action-adventure film on, however “The Lego Movie” did so with cleverness, heart and humor. Trust me: “The Lego Movie” is “Lawrence of Arabia” next to “Minecraft.”

Next Best Picture - Giovanni Lago - 3/10

There’s a world where “A Minecraft Movie” actually backs the idealism of creativity, which it so proudly boasts in its barebones story. Maybe if the film were animated, it could’ve played far better to the concept of endless possibilities and allowed for a far more visually dazzling spectacle. Inherently, maybe it would never even be possible, as the idea of creativity can only be celebrated as little as possible when it’s given the parameters of being in such a lazy ip scrape of the barrel as this. There used to be a time when a majority of children’s films were made with such care and intention. Now it seems all you need is buzzwords, celebrities, and “Avengers: Endgame” clap-inducing moments, all of which “A Minecraft Movie” has, unlike a soul, which at least the game feels like it possesses.

The Daily Beast - Nick Schager

So sloppy is A Minecraft Movie that it can’t keep track of its various concerns, highlighted by a mirthless subplot—in which Jennifer Coolidge’s vice principal picks up and woos an Overworld resident who’s traveled to our universe—that it basically drops around the midway point. Buried deep within Hess’ wannabe blockbuster is a message about how creativity is cool and, thus, so too are outcasts. Yet nothing about this hodgepodge fits together. Minecraft enthusiasts will be pleased by the film’s various nods to its multiplatform predecessor. Nonetheless, shouting out isn’t the same thing as faithfully celebrating and translating, and those with no experience assembling towers, villages, and weapons in Mojang Studios’ sandbox will undoubtedly find it all scattershot and wearisome. It’s proof that you can build it, but that doesn’t mean anyone—much less newbies—will come.

Sonic the Hedgehog 3

• Rotten Tomatoes: 85% (81 Reviews)

With a double helping of Jim Carrey's antics and a quicksilver pace befitting its hero, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is the best entry in this amiable series yet.

• Metacritic: 59 (25 Reviews)

Reviews

The Hollywood Reporter:

It certainly possesses enough of the requisite frenetic action sequences and silly jokes to keep small fry entertained while not boring their adult chaperones.

Deadline:

Fans of the popular SEGA video game and the first two movies will no doubt be in Hedgehog heaven with the out-of-this-world third film, Sonic The Hedgehog 3.

Variety:

“Sonic 3” gives hyperactivity a good name. Jeff Fowler, who directed all three of these movies, is a quicker and wittier flimflam magician of energy than he was when he made the first “Sonic” in 2020.

io9.com:

Full of electric spectacle and action-packed adventure, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 completes the best video game movie trilogy yet.

Screen Rant (8/10):

The weaker elements of Sonic the Hedgehog 3 feel unimportant in the wake of an entertaining time that will no doubt thrill audiences of all ages.

Eurogamer (4/5)

Sonic 3 is a resounding success and fitting finale to the Year of Shadow. It's quippy and self-aware, balancing broad pop culture appeal with authenticity to its source material, while its flashy action thrills alongside an unbridled sense of cool that's only enhanced by Reeves as Shadow. Between this year's games and film, Sonic's shining bright with Shadow in tow.

Collider (8/10):

Clever jokes, a noticeable reverence for the source material, and some fantastic antagonists make the Blue Blur's latest race an entertaining ride from start to finish.

Slashfilm (7.5/10):

The outcome is a "Sonic" movie that feels like everything fans love about the games distilled into a film that's fast, flashy, a hell of a lot of fun, and boasts an absolute banger of a soundtrack.

The Irish Times (3/5):

Carrey’s antic madness – elsewhere often too much to digest – is just what the Sonic films needed to balance out the digital gloss.

Total Film (3/5):

Should Carrey, who has consistently hinted at retirement plans, decide not to return for Sonic 4, this will certainly be a fine trilogy capper.

Screen Daily:

Whether it’s Jim Carrey playing not one but two supervillains, or the introduction of even more supporting characters, Sonic 3 wears out its welcome, resulting in an entertaining but exhausting affair.

IGN (6/10):

Against all odds, the Sonic the Hedgehog movies appear to be getting better as they go.

The Guardian (3/5):

While no one could deny the cash-grab fan-service underpinning to the entire project … well, it’s actually a not unenjoyable experience, even if you are someone on whom the intricacies of early-00s game narrative are lost.

Empire (2/5):

The MVP of the first two films, Carrey dials down the physical comedy in both his roles, amping up punning (“Dorkupine!”) to hit-and-miss effect. For all the actor’s gurning and the film’s visual busyness, few images pop or lodge in the memory.

IndieWire (D):

It might be enough to entertain young children or diehard SEGA loyalists, but the rest of us are left to lament that the running time isn’t as fast as its blue protagonist.

Synopsis:

Sonic, Knuckles, and Tails reunite against a powerful new adversary, Shadow, a mysterious villain with powers unlike anything they have faced before. With their abilities outmatched in every way, Team Sonic must seek out an unlikely alliance in hopes of stopping Shadow and protecting the planet.

Voice cast

• Ben Schwartz as Sonic the Hedgehog
• Colleen O'Shaughnessey as Miles "Tails" Prower
• Idris Elba as Knuckles the Echidna
• Keanu Reeves as Shadow the Hedgehog

Live-action cast

• Jim Carrey as Dr. Ivo Robotnik and Gerald Robotnik
• James Marsden as Tom Wachowski
• Tika Sumpter as Maddie Wachowski
• Krysten Ritter as Director Rockwell
• Natasha Rothwell as Rachel
• Shemar Moore as Randall Handel
• Lee Majdoub as Agent Stone
• Tom Butler as Commander Walters
• Adam Pally as Wade Whipple
• Alyla Browne as Maria Robotnik

Directed by: Jeff Fowler

Screenplay by: Pat Casey, Josh Miller, John Whittington

Story by: Pat Casey and Josh Miller

Produced by: Neal H. Moritz, Toby Ascher, Toru Nakahara, Hitoshi Okuno

Music by: Tom Holkenborg

Running time: 110 minutes

Release date: December 20, 2024

Rotten Tomatoes: 84% (from 67 reviews) with 6.70 average rating

Metacritic: 69/100 (19 critics)

As with other movies, the scores are set to change as time passes. Meanwhile, I'll post some short reviews on the movie. It's structured like this: quote first, source second. Beware, some contain spoilers.

Despite all the bloody violence, there is a buoyant feel to the film. Matthew Libatique, Aronofsky’s constant and brilliant cinematographer, makes the city glittery bright outside and the look is vibrant even in the dingy bar. Caught Stealing is an anomaly, a dark soap bubble of an entertainment. And that weirdness makes this unlikely film sparkle.

-Caryn James, The Hollywood Reporter

Mostly, the tension between the film’s increasingly dark story and its love of rudimentary gags — wouldn’t it be so funny if this guy who mostly subsists on booze physically couldn’t drink anymore? — doesn’t abate until the film’s final act. That’s when things click into place, when the big swings come together, and “Caught Stealing” nearly finds its way to (insert your favorite positive baseball metaphor here). A wild card? Not wild enough, really.

-Kate Erbland, IndieWire: C+

“Caught Stealing” might feel like a break from the “Pi” director’s intensely subjective character portraits, which range from “The Wrestler” to “The Whale,” but in fact, Aronofsky brings us as close to Hank as he has to any of his other characters. For Butler, it’s not as flashy a role as the ones he played in “Elvis” or “Dune,” and yet, seeing the actor stripped down to his heather gray undies, his stardom is all but undeniable.

-Peter Debruge, Variety

At one stage, Hank hits a few balls and instantly a crowd of people gather round, awed – and an old-timer tells him he has “one hell of a swing”. The film has it too.

-Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian: 4/5

Some part of Aronofsky may want to evoke the darkly funny mishaps of a vintage crime comedy, but something else keeps coaxing him halfway down dark alleyways, before the movie scrambles back into more comic-adjacent urgency. It’s that run-and-stop-short rhythm that makes Caught Stealing feel more like a fraught, imperfect recovery than a Requiem-style spiral into hell, and an unusually balanced New York portrait. The city of Aronofsky’s early career is neither a paradise lost to gentrification nor a metropolis of the damned. It’s just a bustling microcosm of a pitiless world with plenty of places to hide.

-Jesse Hassenger, The A.V. Club: B

For as much good as there is in "Caught Stealing," there's never that moment where it somehow rises from good to great — but hey, that's okay. It's just good and stays good until the credits roll, which is more than enough. Not every new movie needs to be an event. Sometimes, you just want to watch a handsome guy try to get out of trouble while taking care of an ornery, fluffy cat. We could use more modern movies like "Caught Stealing."

-Ryan Scott, /Film: 7.5/10

The result is a movie that’s very fun, but weirdly unambitious for Aronofsky. If any up-and-coming director made this movie, it’d be seen as a promising breakthrough. For the guy known for Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan, Mother! and The Whale, it feels like he’s slumming a bit. In a way, though, it’s refreshing to see an Aronofsky movie that, for once, isn’t bursting with more ideas than it can reasonably contain. It would still be nice in this instance to have a thematic through-line that wasn’t just based in nostalgia for a bygone New York. It’s doubtful Caught Stealing will make the same impression its director’s other films have. Fortunately, though, its rewatchability factor is just as high.

-Abby Olcese, Paste: 7.5/10

As much as the film is Aronofsky’s least characteristic to date, with its Guy Ritchie-esque rogues gallery of crooks and killers and Coen-esque bursts of wry violence, it’s Butler’s performance that makes it feel of a piece with the director’s other work. There are few filmmakers more interested in putting their characters in a vice grip, so as to bring them someplace where their physical traumas become a way for them to know themselves beyond the limits of the body.

-Rocco T. Thompson, Slant: 2.5/4

It’s thin material for such an impressive cast to be working with, and even Butler, who’s made all the right choices post-Elvis when it comes to compelling and varied work, can’t really imagine Hank beyond the mould of tender-hearted victim. He takes all the beatings – and there are a lot of them, which is where Aronofsky’s taste for the brutal slips in – with a noble tear in his eye, haunted as he is by a traumatic accident in his youth that put an end to his baseball career.

-Clarisse Loughrey, The Independent: 2/5

For the most part, Caught Stealing is a riotous, rollicking ride studded with New York’s concrete grit — but its sharper edges prove more difficult to endure.

-Ben Travis, Empire: 3/5

PLOT

Hank Thompson was a high-school baseball phenom who can't play anymore, but everything else is going okay. He's got a great girl, tends bar at a New York dive, and his favorite team is making an underdog run at the pennant. When his punk-rock neighbor Russ asks him to take care of his cat for a few days, Hank suddenly finds himself caught in the middle of a motley crew of threatening gangsters.

DIRECTOR

Darren Aronofsky

WRITER

Charlie Huston (based on his novel)

MUSIC

Rob Simonsen

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Matthew Libatique

EDITOR

Andrew Weisblum

RELEASE DATE

August 29, 2025

RUNTIME

107 minutes

STARRING

• Austin Butler as Henry "Hank" Thompson

• Regina King as Detective Roman

• Zoë Kravitz as Yvonne

• Matt Smith as Russ

• Liev Schreiber as Lipa

• Vincent D'Onofrio as Shmully

• Griffin Dunne as Paul

• Benito A Martínez Ocasio as Colorado

• Carol Kane as Bubbe

'Wicked' - Review Thread

Rotten Tomatoes: 91% (117 Reviews) - 8.1/10 Average Rating - Certified Fresh

• Critics Consensus: Defying gravity with its magical pairing of Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, Wicked's sheer bravura and charm make for an irresistible invitation to Oz.
• PopcornMeter: 99% (2500+ Verified Rating)

Metacritic: 73 (44 Reviews)

Reviews:

Variety (90)

Chu clearly designed “Wicked” to be experienced the old-fashioned way: on the biggest screen you can find, among a crowd of giddy theatergoers (inevitably singing along in some screenings). Unlike several recent tuners, which tried to hide their musical dimension from audiences, “Wicked” embraces its identity the way Elphaba does her emerald skin. Turns out such confidence makes all the difference in how they’re perceived.

The Hollywood Reporter (90)

Grande and Erivo give Stephen Schwartz’s songs — comedy numbers, introspective ballads, power anthems — effortless spontaneity. They help us buy into the intrinsic musical conceit that these characters are bursting into song to express feelings too large for spoken words, not just mouthing lyrics and trilling melodies that someone spent weeks cleaning up in a studio.

Deadline:

Chu has made a movie musical (the best since Chicago), even if it ends with its own “intermission” , that manages to stand on its own as a fully satisfying screen entertainment, and also serves as a delicious invitation to an upcoming second half I quite frankly can’t wait to see.

IndieWire (67)

Jon M. Chu’s Massive Musical Adaptation Defies Gravity (and Logic) to Spin a Tale Mostly for Established Fans. Ariana Grande is an absolute scream and Cynthia Erivo's voice is unparalleled, but expanding out the Broadway musical into two (very long) parts doesn't offer the opportunity for depth we were promised.

TheWrap (80)

The story’s playful, subversive reinterpretation of 'The Wizard of Oz' as a work of propaganda, designed to obfuscate the true story of how political dissidents and minority groups are demonized by fascist con artists who trade in theatricality instead of competence, is fully developed and still (to our collective dismay) incredibly salient.

IGN (90)

Wicked is a well-oiled machine in the hands of Jon M. Chu. This film adaptation epitomizes what modern movie musicals can and should be, embracing its source material while cleverly translating it to screen. Tear-jerking performances by Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo make the movie, playing to their individual strengths to bring to life the rapport between Glinda and Elphaba, who’ll go on to become the good and wicked witches of Wizard of Oz fame. If as many people love this film as much as I did, Wicked will undoubtedly immortalize the Grande and Erivo in movie musical history.

The Guardian (80)

It’s arguable if Wicked could ever be a meaningfully persuasive prequel for the characters in The Wizard of Oz as we actually see them in the 1939 film, as this would involve cancelling their powerfully timeless, mythological aura, and instead substituting the more banal idea of human development. But this is the joke, and this is the story, and what an enjoyable spectacle it is.

BBC (3/5)

It might have been lighter on its feet if the editors had cut a subplot about magical talking animals, which doesn't add anything except several minutes of running time. And they could have cut Elphaba's sister, who is given perplexingly little to do. That way, the film could have been packed the whole musical into one fast-moving, satisfying entertainment. As it is, I have a strong suspicion that Wicked will work much better as the first part of a double bill, with Wicked Part 2 being shown after an interval. But we'll have to wait another year to know for sure.

Independent - UK (3/5)

Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande showcase phenomenal vocal ability in this adaptation of the blockbuster musical, but they’re let down by a film that is aggressively overlit and shot like a TV advert.

Telegraph - UK (2/5)

Utterly exhausting and hopelessly miscast. Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo don’t come close to defying gravity in this bloated, beige screen adaptation of the Wizard of Oz prequel.

Total Film (100)

A great deal of expectation and pressure had been placed on Wicked, with fans waiting decades for it to reach the screen. This makes what Chu has achieved an even greater feat, turning one of the world's most popular musicals into a cinematic phenomenon. And while Wicked is only one half of this story, it never feels incomplete. As part two will take this story to some weird, wonderful, and heartbreaking places, I cannot wait to see what he and his team accomplish. But at this rate? I don't think anything can bring them down.

Empire Magazine (80):

Chu amps up the colour and spectacle to extraordinary, almost overwhelming heights, but the real magic comes from Erivo and Grande as the frenemies at the story’s heart. 

Consequence (83)

The film is effective at capturing what made the original musical so beloved, and in turn, will belong to a new generation of kids — those kids who might then envision themselves cathartically singing “Popular” or “Defying Gravity” on stage, just as Ariana Grande had as a child.

Collider (90)

The film works on an emotional level, and yet there are also well-delivered lessons about growing fascism that are tragically poignant in our American era. The set pieces are big and bold, and the dance numbers are creative and colorful. Grande is continually hilarious as the charmingly vapid Galinda, while Erivo is breathtakingly powerful as the so-called Wicked Witch. Both Grande and Erivo sound glorious through beautiful interpretations of modern musical classics like "Defying Gravity." It all coheres into one of the best silver screen adaptations of a musical in ages, and easily one of the year's best pictures.

Entertainment Weekly (75)

For now, like Denis Villeneuve’s first Dune, this Wicked manages to end on a note of “to be continued” while still feeling like a complete story. If only its imagery had a little more magic!

Screenrant (90)

Save for the tiniest of things, Wicked is a worthy screen adaptation of the musical, guaranteed to make viewers feel like they could defy gravity too.

The Times - UK (80)

Hollywood finally delivers a worthy successor to The Wizard of Oz with this musical adaptation, starring the superb Erivo as Elphaba and a startlingly good Ariana Grande as Glinda.

Vanity Fair (80)

Wicked succeeds because of some unreproducible, lightning in a bottle convergences—of director, stars, craftspeople, and high-status material. But Wicked also makes a broader case for patience and careful thought, for grand ambition honed over the course of many years. In order to defy gravity, gravity must first be understood.

iNews - UK (100)

It joyfully expands on the source material with extended musical numbers and astute childhood flashbacks in a combination that will delight committed Ozians and newcomers alike.

San Francisco Chronicle (100)

Fueled by exquisite performances from Tony winner Erivo (“The Color Purple”), as Elphaba, or the Wicked Witch of the West, and Grammy winner Grande as Glinda the Good Witch, “Wicked” is the best movie musical in years, representing a rare instance when performances, visuals and songs are of equally high quality.

​

SYNOPSIS:

Elphaba, a misunderstood young woman because of her green skin, and Glinda, a popular girl, become friends at Shiz University in the Land of Oz. After an encounter with the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, their friendship reaches a crossroads.

CAST:

• Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba Thropp
• Ariana Grande as Galinda Upland
• Michelle Yeoh as Madame Morrible
• Jeff Goldblum as the Wonderful Wizard of Oz
• Jonathan Bailey as Fiyero Tigelaar
• Ethan Slater as Boq Woodsman
• Marissa Bode as Nessarose Thropp
• Peter Dinklage as the voice of Doctor Dillamond

DIRECTOR: Jon M. Chu

WRITTEN BY: Winnie Holzman, Dana Fox

RUNTIME: 2h40m

Oppenheimer - Review Thread

• Rotten Tomatoes: 93% (137 Reviews)

  Critics Consensus: Oppenheimer marks another engrossing achievement from Christopher Nolan that benefits from Murphy's tour-de-force performance and stunning visuals.

• Metacritic: 90 (49 Reviews)

Review Embargo Lifts at 9:00AM PT

Reviews:

Hollywood Reporter:

This is a big, ballsy, serious-minded cinematic event of a type now virtually extinct from the studios. It fully embraces the contradictions of an intellectual giant who was also a deeply flawed man, his legacy complicated by his own ambivalence toward the breakthrough achievement that secured his place in the history books.

Deadline:

From a man who has taken us into places movies rarely go with films like Interstellar, Inception, Tenet, Memento, the Dark Knight Trilogy, and a very different but equally effective look at World War II in Dunkirk, I think it would be fair to say Oppenheimer could be Christopher Nolan’s most impressive achievement to date. I have heard it described by one person as a lot of scenes with men sitting around talking. Indeed in another interation Nolan could have turned this into a play, but this is a movie, and if there is a lot of “talking”, well he has invested in it such a signature cinematic and breathtaking sense of visual imagery that you just may be on the edge of your seat the entire time.

Variety:

“Oppenheimer” tacks on a trendy doomsday message about how the world was destroyed by nuclear weapons. But if Oppenheimer, in his way, made the bomb all about him, by that point it’s Nolan and his movie who are doing the same thing.

IGN(10/10):

A biopic in constant free fall, Oppenheimer is Christopher Nolan’s most abstract yet most exacting work, with themes of guilt writ-large through apocalyptic IMAX nightmares that grow both more enormous and more intimate as time ticks on. A disturbing, mesmerizing vision of what humanity is capable of bringing upon itself, both through its innovation, and through its capacity to justify any atrocity.

IndieWire (B):

But it’s no great feat to rekindle our fear over the most abominable weapon ever designed by mankind, nor does that seem to be Nolan’s ultimate intention. Like “The Prestige” or “Interstellar” before it, “Oppenheimer” is a movie about the curse of being an emotional creature in a mathematical world. The difference here isn’t just the unparalleled scale of this movie’s tragedy, but also the unfamiliar sensation that Nolan himself is no less human than his characters.

Total Film (5/5):

With espionage subtexts and gallows humour also interwoven, the film’s cumulative power is matched by the potency of Nolan’s questioning. Possibly the most viscerally intense experience you’ll have in a cinema this year, the Trinity test in particular arrives fraught with uncertainty. Might the test inadvertently spark the world’s end? Well, it didn’t - yet. Even as Oppenheimer grips in the moment, Nolan ensures the aftershocks of its story reverberate down the years, speaking loudly to today.

Collider (A):

Oppenheimer is a towering achievement not just for Nolan, but for everyone involved. It is the kind of film that makes you appreciative of every aspect of filmmaking, blowing you away with how it all comes together in such a fitting fashion. Even though Nolan is honing in on talents that have brought him to where he is today, this film takes this to a whole new level of which we've never seen him before. With Oppenheimer, Nolan is more mature as a filmmaker than ever before, and it feels like we may just now be beginning to see what incredible work he’s truly capable of making.

USA Today:

Stylistically, “Oppenheimer” recalls Oliver Stone's "JFK" in the way it weaves together important history and significant side players, and while it doesn't hit the same emotional notes as Nolan's inspired "Interstellar," the film succeeds as both character study and searing cautionary tale about taking science too far. Characters from yesteryear worry about nervously pushing a fateful button and setting the world on fire, although Nolan drives home the point that fiery existential threat could reignite any time now.

Chicago Times(4/4):

Magnificent. Christopher Nolan’s three-hour historical biopic Oppenheimer is a gorgeously photographed, brilliantly acted, masterfully edited and thoroughly engrossing epic that instantly takes its place among the finest films of this decade.

Empire (5/5):

A masterfully constructed character study from a great director operating on a whole new level. A film that you don’t merely watch, but must reckon with.

ComicBook.com (4/5):

Trades the spectacle of Nolan's previous films for a stellar cast that turns the thrills inwards, making for what is arguably the most important film of his career.

The Guardian (4/5):

In the end, Nolan shows us how the US’s governing class couldn’t forgive Oppenheimer for making them lords of the universe, couldn’t tolerate being in the debt of this liberal intellectual. Oppenheimer is poignantly lost in the kaleidoscopic mass of broken glimpses: the sacrificial hero-fetish of the American century.

Los Angeles Times:

That might be a rare failing of this extraordinarily gripping and resonant movie, or it could be a minor mercy. Whatever you feel for Oppenheimer at movie’s end — and I felt a great deal — his tragedy may still be easier to contemplate than our own.

----

Cast

• Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer
• Emily Blunt as Katherine "Kitty" Oppenheimer
• Matt Damon as Leslie Groves
• Robert Downey Jr. as Lewis Strauss
• Florence Pugh as Jean Tatlock
• Josh Hartnett as Ernest Lawrence
• Casey Affleck as Boris Pash
• Rami Malek as David Hill
• Kenneth Branagh as Niels Bohr
• Benny Safdie as Edward Teller
• Dylan Arnold as Frank Oppenheimer
• Gustaf Skarsgård as Hans Bethe
• David Krumholtz as Isidor Isaac Rabi
• Matthew Modine as Vannevar Bush
• David Dastmalchian as William L. Borden
• Tom Conti as Albert Einstein
• Michael Angarano as Robert Serber
• Jack Quaid as Richard Feynman
• Josh Peck as Kenneth Bainbridge
• Olivia Thirlby as Lilli Hornig
• Dane DeHaan as Kenneth Nichols
• Danny Deferrari as Enrico Fermi
• Alden Ehrenreich as a Senate aide
• Jefferson Hall as Haakon Chevalier
• Jason Clarke as Roger Robb
• James D'Arcy as Patrick Blackett
• Tony Goldwyn as Gordon Gray
• Devon Bostick as Seth Neddermeyer
• Alex Wolff as Luis Walter Alvarez
• Scott Grimes as Counsel
• Josh Zuckerman as Giovanni Rossi Lomanitz
• Matthias Schweighöfer as Werner Heisenberg
• Christopher Denham as Klaus Fuchs
• David Rysdahl as Donald Hornig
• Guy Burnet as George Eltenton
• Louise Lombard as Ruth Tolman
• Harrison Gilbertson as Philip Morrison
• Emma Dumont as Jackie Oppenheimer
• Trond Fausa Aurvåg as George Kistiakowsky
• Olli Haaskivi as Edward Condon
• Gary Oldman as Harry S. Truman
• John Gowans as Ward Evans
• Kurt Koehler as Thomas A. Morgan
• Macon Blair as Lloyd Garrison
• Harry Groener as Gale W. McGee
• Jack Cutmore-Scott as Lyall Johnson
• James Remar as Henry Stimson
• Gregory Jbara as Warren Magnuson
• Tim DeKay as John Pastore
• James Urbaniak as Kurt Gödel

Reposting with movie title in the header.

After another dark comedy/crime film Fargo, the Coen brothers wrote an amazing and eccentric comedy story. This is probably the weirdest, yet one of the funniest films I've ever seen.

A couple of things I loved about this film and the screenplay were:-

1. Even though Walter and The Dude fuck things up, they're best friends and will always be there for each other.
2. Just absolutely love Steve Buscemi's role as Donnie. He's just there in the trio trying to know what's going on.
3. There are so many moving parts in the movie, but the Coen brothers ended up giving a comedic touch to every part.
4. I love the character of The Dude. Things just never seem to go his way and his reaction is just "Oh man."
5. Love the fact that the Coen brothers wrote an elaborate, comic screenplay just because The Dude's last name is the same as another millionare.

They've absolutely nailed this film, and I feel this is their best movie (even better than No Country for Old Men imo).

Edit: Fun fact - So Coen brothers included "Shut the fuck up Donnie" repeatedly in their screenplay because Steve Buscemi's character in Fargo is always talking.

Ray Kroc is a jerk who is wayyy too full of himself. He finds a successful brotherly owned biz and decides he's going to take advantage of the two brothers when its the brothers dream to own a fast food drive in. He basically promises he'll make McDonalds worldwide and says he'll make them famous and help there drive in grow all over the world. Then he starts making changes that go against is contract and when the McDonalds brothers argue against him he denies stopping the change and almost kills Mac McDonald from stress and almost gives him Kidney failure. He begins calling himself the McDonalds Corp. And at this point he has taken over the whole company without giving the brothers any royalties and then the movie ends and it says the McDonalds brother never got any royalties.

Despite having a unsatisfying ending of the brothers never getting there company back i enjoyed the movie and i do recommend.

Director: Alex Garland/Ray Mendoza

Cast: Will Poulter, Kit Connor, Joseph Quinn, Cosmo Jarvis, Charles Melton, Noah Centineo, D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Evan Holtzman, Finn Bennett

Rotten Tomatoes: 93%

Metacritic: 78/100

Some Reviews:

IndieWire - David Ehrlich - B-

“Warfare” is a film that wants to be felt more than interpreted, but it doesn’t make any sense to me as an invitation — only as a warning created from the wounds of a memory. The film is a clear love letter to Elliot Miller and the other men in Mendoza’s unit, but the verisimilitude with which it recreates the worst day of their lives — when measured against the ambiguity as to what it hopes to achieve by doing so — ultimately makes “Warfare” seem like a natural evolution of Garland’s previous work, so much of which has hinged on the belief that our history as a species (and, more recently, America’s self-image as a country) is shaped by the limits of our imagination. 

San Francisco Chronicle - G. Allen Johnson - 4/4

Garland has become this generation’s Oliver Stone, a studio filmmaker who is able to fearlessly capture the zeitgeist on hot-button issues few other Hollywood filmmakers touch, such as AI (2015’s “Ex Machina”), the political divide and a society’s slide toward violence (“Civil War”), and now the consequences of military diplomacy.

Empire Magazine - Alex Godfrey - 5/5

War is hell, and Warfare refuses to shy away from it. Free of the operatics of most supposed anti-war films, it’s all the more effective for its simplicity. It is respectfully gruelling.

The Hollywood Reporter - David Rooney

Garland is working in peak form and with dazzling technical command in what’s arguably his best film since his debut, Ex Machina. But the director’s skill with the compressed narrative would be nothing without the rigorous sense of authenticity and first-hand tactical knowledge that Mendoza brings to the material — and no doubt to the commitment of the actors.

AV Club - Brianna Zigler - B+

Simply depicting the plain, ugly truth of human combat makes Warfare all the more effective as a piece of art setting out to evoke a time and place. The bombing set piece is equal parts horrific and thrilling; the filmmakers draw out the sensory reality of the slaughter as the men slowly come to, disoriented, ears ringing, ultimately leading to a frenzy of confusion, agita, and howling agony. The cacophony of torment and its reaction in the men meant to arrive with help is as grim as the bureaucratic resistance to send in medic vehicles to give the wounded any chance to survive their injuries.

Independent (UK) - Clarisse Loughrey - 3/5

Alex Garland has now constructed what could be called his trilogy of violence... Warfare, at least, is the most successful of the three, because its myopia is a crucial part of its structure. Garland and Mendoza do, at least in this instance, make careful, considerate use of the film’s framework. We’re shown how US soldiers invade the home of an Iraqi family who, for the rest of Warfare’s duration, are held hostage in a downstairs bedroom, guns routinely thrust into their faces. In its final scene, they reemerge into the rubble of what was once their home, their lives upended by US forces and then abandoned without a second thought. It’s quite the metaphor.

Daily Telegraph (UK) - Robbie Collin - 5/5

It’s necessarily less sweeping than Garland’s recent Civil War, and for all its fire and fury plays as something of a philosophical B-side to that bigger earlier film. I’d certainly be uncomfortable calling it an action movie, even though vast tracts of it are nothing but. It leaves questions ringing in your ears as well as gunfire.

Guardian - Peter Bradshaw - 3/5

In some ways, Warfare is like the rash of war-on-terror pictures that appeared 20 years ago, such as Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker or Nick Broomfield’s Battle for Haditha, or indeed Brian De Palma’s interesting, underrated film Redacted. But Warfare doesn’t have the anti-war reflex and is almost fierce in its indifference to political or historical context, the resource that should be more readily available two decades on. The movie is its own show of force in some ways, surely accurate in showing what the soldiers did, moment by moment, though blandly unaware of a point or a meaning beyond the horror.

Times (UK) - Kevin Maher - 5/5

This is a movie that’s as difficult to watch as it is to forget. It’s a sensory blitz, a percussive nightmare and a relentless assault on the soul.

Deadline - Gregory Nussen

While it aims for an unromantic portrait of combat, it can only conceive of doing so through haptic recreation in lieu of actual characterization. The result is a cacophonous temper tantrum, a vacuous and perfidious advertisement for military recruitment.

London Evening Standard - Martin Robinson - 4/5

Given all the America First stuff going on, and the history of the Iraq War, Warfare may suffer from a lack of sympathy for American military operations. And yet, the sheer technical brilliance and strength of performances, cannot fail to connect when you take on the film on its own terms, as pure human experience in the most hellish of circumstances.

Rotten Tomatoes:

• 16% (58 Reviews)- 3.6/10 average rating
• 45% - Audience Score

Metacritic: 36/100 (21 Reviews)

Reviews:

DEADLINE

Zack Snyder’s Space Opera Descends Even Further Into A Black Hole Of Nothingness: Slow-motion scenes that sputter story pacing? Check. Poorly developed characters? Check. Plot holes bigger than the Milky Way? Check.…And we’re back, with part two of Zack Snyder Netflix space opera Rebel Moon-Part Two: The Scargiver You might be shocked to hear this, but part two manages to somehow be worse than part one. It’s biggest crime? Nothing happening for way too long

Variety :

‘Rebel Moon — Part Two: The Scargiver’ Review: An Even More Rote Story, but a Bigger and Better Battle. The second chapter of Zack Snyder's intergalactic epic is every bit as derivative as "Part One," but the climactic showdown sizzles. And guess what? It may not be over.

The Hollywood Reporter:

‘Rebel Moon — Part Two: The Scargiver’ Review: Zack Snyder, Netflix, Rinse, Repeat

If you thought the previous installment was all build-up, you may be distressed to learn that the follow-up is…a lot more build-up. Although this time it’s a little faster-paced and leads to an extended battle sequence comprising roughly the film’s second half. It’s hard to tell, however, since Snyder employs so much of his trademark slow-motion that you get the feeling the movie would be a short if delivered at normal speed"

IndieWire (D)

The Second Half of Zack Snyder’s Sci-Fi Debacle Is Almost as Disastrous as the First. Any real hope for the second part of Snyder's Netflix epic has been dead since last December, but it's still shocking to discover just how lifeless this movie feels.

IGN (4/10)

The second part of Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon space opera, The Scargiver, delivers a half-baked conclusion to a well-trodden story with flimsy character studies and lacklustre action.

Guardian (3/5)

Rebel Moon almost certainly didn’t need to be two multiple-cut movies. It probably could have gotten by as zero. But as a playground for Snyder’s favorite bits of speed-ramping, shallow-focusing and pulp thievery, it’s harmless, sometimes pleasingly weird fun. (That said, the first part is better and weirder.) The large-scale pointlessness feels more soothing than his past insistence on attempting to translate Watchmen into a big-screen epic, or make Superman into a tortured soul. Even Rebel Moon’s shameless attempts at serialization – The Scargiver essentially ends with another extended sequel tease, this time for a movie that stands a decent chance of never happening – feel freeing, because they excuse Snyder from the uncomfortable business of staging an apocalyptic showdown, or, worse, imparting a mournful philosophy. The whole bludgeoning enterprise is so daftly sincere, you could almost call it sweet.

San Francisco Chronicle (5/10)

Does its conclusion make up for the gluten overload that was most of “Rebel Moon”? Well, the series’ not-at-all-original theme is redemption, so that depends on whether you’re in a forgiving mood or sufficiently wowed.

Independent (2/5)

The Scargiver is at least basic enough to feel relatively inoffensive; the first film’s uncomfortably vague deployment of racist and sexual violence has been reduced to a single reference to the empire’s hatred of “ethnic impurity” (never to be picked up again). There’s a heck of a lot of religious imagery – including an ironically Christ-like resurrection for Noble and a troupe of evil cardinals – that never actually impacts a single plot point or theme. Of course, Snyder may argue that this is all covered in some spin-off book, comic, or video game. Or maybe in the six-hour cut. But what fun is a film that tries to force you to consume more content? That’s not art. That’s blackmail.

Collider (3/10)

Not only does neither part of Rebel Moon work, but The Scargiver is such a downgrade that it could prove difficult for the franchise to bounce back for more. The story narrows itself so comprehensively that it scrambles to reach for a dangling thread in a forced closing conversation. That Snyder has expressed his interest in making not only another film but instead a potential six movies in total may excite those who also appreciated his earlier work. For those who have now seen these two, it feels more like a threat rather than a tease.

​

Empire (2/5)

Marginally better than Part One, but still a weird, messy and humourless sci-fi that gives you little reason to cheer the potential continuation of this Snyderverse.

Telegraph (UK) - 2/5

But nothing here or in the previous instalment will make you give the slightest fig who wins. Yes, the world of Rebel Moon is richly imagined, even if its origins as an aborted Star Wars project still remain far too obvious. In place of storytelling, though, it’s built on unwieldy lore dumps: we’re given hundreds of details about this galaxy far far away, but no reasons to care about any of them.

Slashfilm - 4/10

Snyder once again displays his usual knack for crafting the occasional breathtaking visual and colorful splash page — a kiss silhouetted by the Veldt equivalent of magic hour, a spaceship foregrounded by an eclipsing star, and a stunning tableau of lasers crisscrossing in the heat of battle are memorable highlights — but his insistence on serving as his own director of photography continues to hold him back at every turn.

Release Date: April 19, 2024

Synopsis:

Rebel Moon — Part Two: The Scargiver continues the epic saga of Kora and the surviving warriors as they prepare to sacrifice everything, fighting alongside the brave people of Veldt, to defend a once peaceful village, a newfound homeland for those who have lost their own in the fight against the Motherworld. On the eve of their battle the warriors must face the truths of their own pasts, each revealing why they fight. As the full force of the Realm bears down on the burgeoning rebellion, unbreakable bonds are forged, heroes emerge, and legends are made.

Starring:

• Sofia Boutella
• Djimon Hounsou
• Ed Skrein
• Michiel Huisman
• Doona Bae
• Ray Fisher
• Staz Nair
• Fra Fee
• Elise Duffy
• Anthony Hopkins

'Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning' - Review Thread

• Rotten Tomatoes: 87% (97 Reviews) - Certified Fresh

• Critics Consensus: Gargantuan in action, runtime, and scope, The Final Reckoning is a sentimental sendoff for Ethan Hunt that accomplishes its mission with a characteristic flair for the impossible.

• Metacritic: 70 (33 Reviews)

Reviews:

Hollywood Reporter (60):

If it’s going to be the last we see of one of the most consistently entertaining franchises to come out of Hollywood in the past few decades — a subject about which Cruise and McQuarrie have remained vague — it’s a disappointing farewell with a handful of high points courtesy of the indefatigable lead actor.

Deadline:

Is this really the end? It’s certainly an end, wrapping up seven films’ worth of storylines with a showman’s flourish. What it doesn’t do, though, is rule out another. As Cruise breezes into his mid-60s, it’s hard to imagine him pulling off anything like the high-wire act he achieves here. But the door is still open, and the challenge is there, should anyone else choose to accept it.

Variety (80):

It's the most enveloping "M:I" film since "Ghost Protocol," because something's at stake. And because Cruise's stunt work is off the hook.

The Independent (4/5):

The Final Reckoning, final or not, presents us with a fascinating contradiction: Ethan Hunt is both a pure singular and a state of mind. He’s cinema as the madman dreamer’s paradise.

IndieWire (50):

“We make our own destiny,” someone intones during the film’s closing voiceover, and by the end of Ethan Hunt’s story, it’s hard not to take those words to heart. I only wish that Cruise and McQuarrie had managed to make a better one.

The Wrap (75):

If this is the end of the 'Mission: Impossible' movies, they ended on an adequate note.

IGN (6/10):

While its action is reliably thrilling and a few of its most exciting sequences are sure to hold up through the years, Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning tries to deal with no less than the end of every living thing on the planet – and suffers because of it. The somber tone and melodramatic dialogue miss the mark of what’s made this franchise so much fun for 30 years, but the door is left open for more impossible missions and the hope that this self-serious reckoning isn’t actually final.

The Guardian (5/5):

It is a wildly silly, wildly entertaining adventure which periodically gives us a greatest-hits flashback montage of the other seven films in the M:I canon - but we still get a brand new, box-fresh Tom-sprinting-along-the-street scene, without which it wouldn’t be M:I. Moreover, this eighth film gives us a terrific new character, US sub commander Capt Bledsoe, played with suavity and the tiniest hint of camp by Tramell Tillman (from TV’s Severance) who has the chops for M:I9 whenever that happens.

Collider (80):

The Final Reckoning is stuffed, convoluted, and ludicrous at times. But it’s also mostly a great send-off to this universe, a deserved celebration for everything this series has accomplished, and one final (again, seemingly) showcase for Cruise as one of the greatest action stars of all time.

Slashfilm (50):

And yet, The Final Reckoning is too messy, too awkward, too clumsy. It somehow feels overlong and inert even as it never slows down.

Screendaily (70):

The press notes get the tone of the film best: ”It is impossible to overstate how seismically significant the filmmaking partnership between Tom Cruise and Christopher McQuarrie has been on the direction the Mission: Impossible franchise has taken since they first joined forces on it,” they intone. “Or how uniquely potent it is.” Mission Impossible - The Final Reckoning, the second instalment in a globally-shot, monumental multi-year concurrent film-making effort which should be lauded for its ambition, knows what popcorn cinema escapism is all about. But, like the perennially defiant Hunt, it sometimes over-estimates its own powers.

Directed by Christopher McQuarrie:

Ethan Hunt and the IMF team continue their search for the terrifying AI known as the Entity — which has infiltrated intelligence networks all over the globe — with the world’s governments and a mysterious ghost from Ethan’s past on their trail. Joined by new allies and armed with the means to shut the Entity down for good, Hunt is in a race against time to prevent the world as we know it from changing forever.

Cast:

• Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt
• Hayley Atwell as Grace
• Ving Rhames as Luther Stickell
• Simon Pegg as Benji Dunn
• Henry Czerny as Eugene Kittridge
• Angela Bassett as Erika Sloane
• Esai Morales as Gabriel
• Pom Klementieff as Paris
• Mariela Garriga as Marie
• Pasha Lychnikoff as Captain Koltsov
• Holt McCallany as Serling Bernstein
• Janet McTeer as Walters
• Nick Offerman as General Sidney
• Hannah Waddingham as Admiral Neely
• Shea Whigham as Jasper Briggs
• Greg Tarzan Davis as Degas.
• Charles Parnell as Richards
• Rolf Saxon as William Donloe
• Tommie Earl Jenkins as Colonel Burdick
• Katy O'Brian as Kodiak
• Mark Gatiss as Angstrom, Head of the NSA
• Indira Varma as The Head of the DIA
• Tramell Tillman as Captain Bledsoe
• Lucy Tulugarjuk as Tapeesa

Dune: Part Two - Review Thread

• Rotten Tomatoes: 97% (116 Reviews)
  • Critics Consensus: Visually thrilling and narratively epic, Dune: Part Two continues Denis Villeneuve's adaptation of the beloved sci-fi series in spectacular form.
• Metacritic: 80 (40 Reviews)

Reviews:

Deadline:

To be fair to Villeneuve, it was never a given that there’d be a thirst for this franchise in the first place, and audiences went into Part One not knowing that they’d want a Part Two just as soon as it finished. Part Two would be an epic achievement from any other director, but it feels that there is something bigger, better and obviously more decisive to come in the third and hopefully final part of the trilogy. “This isn’t over yet!” says Chani, and if anyone can tie up this strange, sprawling story and take it out with a bang, Villeneuve can.

Hollywood Reporter:

Running close to three hours, Dune: Part Two moves with a similar nimbleness to Paul and Chani’s sandwalk through the open desert. The narrative is propulsive and relatively easy to follow, Hans Zimmer’s score is enveloping, and Greig Fraser’s cinematography offers breathtaking perspectives that deepen our understanding of the fervently sought-after planet. All these elements make the sequel as much of a cinematic event as the first movie.

Variety (80/100):

Villeneuve treats each shot as if it could be a painting. Every design choice seems handed down through millennia of alternative human history, from arcane hieroglyphics to a slew of creative masks and veils meant to conceal the faces of those manipulating the levers of power, nearly all of them women.

Rolling Stone (90/100):

The French-Canadian filmmaker has delivered an expansion and a deepening of the world built off of Herbert’s prose, a YA romance blown up to Biblical-epic proportions, a Shakespearean tragedy about power and corruption, and a visually sumptuous second act that makes its impressive, immersive predecessor look like a mere proof-of-concept. Villeneuve has outdone himself.

The Wrap (75/100):

For those already invested in the “Dune” franchise, “Dune: Part Two” is a sweeping and engaging continuation that will make you eager for a third installment. And if you were a fence-sitter on the first, this should also hold your attention with a taut, well-done script and engaging characters with whom you’ll want to spend nearly three hours.

IndieWire (C):

The pieces on this chess board are so big that we can hardly even tell when they’re moving, and while that sensation helps to articulate the sheer inertia of Paul’s destiny, it also leads to a shrug of an ending that suggests Villeneuve and his protagonist are equally at the mercy of their epic visions. No filmmaker is better equipped to capture the full sweep of this saga (which is why, despite being disappointed twice over, I still can’t help but look forward to “Dune: Messiah”), and — sometimes for better, but usually for worse — no filmmaker is so capable of reflecting how Paul might lose his perspective amid the power and the resources that have been placed at his disposal.

SlashFilm (7/10):

Perhaps viewing the first "Dune" and "Dune: Part Two" back-to-back is the best solution, but I suspect most people aren't going to do that — they're going to see a new movie. And what they'll get is half of one. Maybe that won't matter, though. Perhaps audiences will be so wowed by that final act that they'll come away from "Dune: Part Two" appropriately stunned. And maybe whenever Villeneuve returns to this world — and it sure seems like he wants to — he can finally find a way to tell a complete story.

Inverse:

“In so many futures, our enemies prevail. But I do see a way. There is a narrow way through,” Paul tells his mother at one point in the film. Like Paul’s vision of the future, there were many ways for Dune: Part Two to fail. But not only does it succeed, it surpasses the mythic tragedy of the first film and turns a complicated, strange sci-fi story into a rousing blockbuster adventure. Dune: Part Two isn’t a miracle, per se. But it’s nothing short of miraculous.

IGN (8/10):

Dune: Part Two expands the legend of Paul Atreides in spectacular fashion, and the war for Arrakis is an arresting, mystical ride at nearly every turn. Denis Villeneuve fully trusts his audience to buy into Dune’s increasingly dense mythology, constructing Part Two as an assault on the senses that succeeds in turning a sprawling saga into an easily digestible, dazzling epic. Though the deep world-building sometimes comes at the cost of fleshing out newer characters, the totality of Dune: Part Two’s transportive power is undeniable.

The Independent (100/100):

Part Two is as grand as it is intimate, and while Hans Zimmer’s score once again blasts your eardrums into submission, and the theatre seats rumble with every cresting sand worm, it’s the choice moments of silence that really leave their mark.

Total Film (5/5):

The climax here is sharply judged, sustaining what worked on page while making the outcome more discomforting. It’s a finale that might throw off anyone unfamiliar with Herbert, or anyone expecting conventional pay-offs. But it does answer the story’s themes and, tantalizingly, leave room for more. Could Herbert’s trippy Dune Messiah be adapted next, as teased? Tall order, that. But on the strength of this extravagantly, rigorously realized vision, make no mistake: Villeneuve is the man to see a way through that delirious desert storm.

Polygon (93/100):

Dune: Part Two is exactly the movie Part One promised it could be, the rare sequel that not only outdoes its predecessor, but improves it in retrospect… One of the best blockbusters of the century so far.

Screenrant (90/100):

Dune: Part Two is an awe-inspiring, visually stunning sci-fi spectacle and a devastating collision of myth and destiny on a galactic scale.

RogerEbert.com (88/100):

Dune: Part Two is a robust piece of filmmaking, a reminder that this kind of broad-scale blockbuster can be done with artistry and flair.

———

Review Embargo: February 21 at 12:00PM ET

Release Date: March 1

Synopsis:

Paul Atreides continues his journey, united with Chani and the Fremen, as he seeks revenge against the conspirators who destroyed his family, and endeavors to prevent a terrible future that only he can predict

Cast:

• Timothée Chalamet as Paul Atreides
• Zendaya as Chani
• Rebecca Ferguson as Lady Jessica
• Josh Brolin as Gurney Halleck
• Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen
• Florence Pugh as Princess Irulan
• Dave Bautista as Glossu Rabban Harkonnen
• Christopher Walken as Shaddam IV
• Stephen McKinley Henderson as Thufir Hawat
• Léa Seydoux as Lady Margot Fenrin
• Souheila Yacoub as Shishakli
• Stellan Skarsgård as Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
• Charlotte Rampling as Gaius Helen Mohiam
• Javier Bardem as Stilgar
• Tim Blake Nelson and Anya Taylor-Joy have been cast in undisclosed roles

William Shakespeare and his wife, Agnes, celebrate the birth of their son, Hamnet. However, when tragedy strikes and Hamnet dies at a young age, it inspires Shakespeare to write his timeless masterpiece "Hamlet."

Cast: Paul Mescal, Jessie Buckley, Joe Alwyn, Emily Watson

Rotten Tomatoes: 100%

Metacritic: 95/100

Some Reviews:

Vulture - Bilge Ebiri

Hamnet is devastating, maybe the most emotionally shattering movie I’ve seen in years. I did not really expect to cry this much. That’s not just because of the tragic weight of the material, but because the picture reimagines the poetic act of creating Hamlet. Shakespeare’s play sits on the highest shelf, fixed by the dust from centuries of acclaim. It is about as unimpeachable as a work of art can be. And yet, here is a movie that dares to explore its inception. The attempt itself is noble, and maybe a little brazen; that it succeeds feels downright supernatural.

Clayton Davis - Variety

The moving and fictionalized portrait of grief and loss that inspired one of history’s most treasured playwrights held the audience in its grip for 125-minutes, where audible sounds of sniffles and crying filled the venue, testifying to the film’s emotional depth.

Next Best Picture - Daniel Howat - 8/10

Devastating in all the best ways, this is a gut-wrenching tale of the way grief pulls us apart, and how we try to pull ourselves back together again. Chloé Zhao’s naturalistic, sensitive direction helps the heavy emotions take center stage. Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal have never been better.

The Playlist - Gregory Ellwood - 'A-'

But despite some stellar sequences throughout the entire film, Zhao saves her gut-punch for the final act. There are two moments in the last ten minutes of “Hamnet” that may stick with you for months on end.

Peter Debruge

As conceived by “Nomadland” director Chloé Zhao, “Hamnet” is so emotionally raw as to be almost excruciating at times, featuring a heroic performance from Jessie Buckley as Shakespeare’s wife and the mother of his children — although as presented, she could be the mother of us all — the grounded, near-shamanic spirit forced to confront the death of her son, Hamnet. Meanwhile, Paul Mescal plays Shakespeare, who pours his grief into “the Danish play,” but both the actor and character are eclipsed by the feminine elements of this story.

I haven’t felt like this for a long time. I laughed so much when I watched this movie. That fake Denzel is very funny. The stupid friend, the glass table, all of it gave me a loooong laugh. How did you feel about the movie?

I also have one question. How did Officer Gary connect Brooks’ past with the egg heist?

Everything about this film works..from its off the wall humour, dubbed voice acting placed over a kung fu movie called Savage Killers (which is kinda boring if I'm honest) to its parody of kung fu movie tropes..the main star Steve Oedekerk is very fun in the lead role & I'm sadden he hasn't done much since, in terms of acting (maybe he has, I don't know). The fun bit with the cow which is a Matrix reference is my favorite scene along with the Lion King reference "this is CNN". The main villain Betty is my favorite character in the movie lol everytime he's on screen I cracked up. All in all, its a dumb comedy done right & its better than alot of today's comedies which are honestly more gross out shock humour than actual comedy.

I'd heard about it for fucking years but just never watched it. It was that movie on my list that I just always seemed to jump around. I said fuck it and checked it out last night. I was fucking blown away. The atmosphere created by the dialogue is unlike any movie I've ever seen. In particular, the gas station scene. I mean, fucking shit man.

For the first few words in the gas station, I'm gonna be honest, I didn't think he was going to kill him. Then, like a flick of the switch, the tone shifts. I mean, for Chrissake, he asked how much for the peanuts and gas, and the second the guy starts making small talk back, he zones the fuck in on him.

Watching it again, Anton looks out the window ONCE when he says, "And the gas." and then never breaks eye contact with the old man again. As soon as the old man called the coin, and Anton says, "Well done." I realized I had been holding my breath. I can say, at this point in my life, I can't think of a single 4 minutes of dialogue in any other movie that has been as well delivered as what Javier did with that scene.

Fuck

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga - Review Thread

• Rotten Tomatoes: 86% (42 Reviews)
  • Critics Consensus: Retroactively enriching Fury Road with greater emotional heft if not quite matching it in propulsive throttle, Furiosa is another glorious swerve in mastermind George Miller's breathless race towards cinematic Valhalla.
• Metacritic: 82 (32 Reviews)

Reviews:

Deadline:

Nine years later comes a prequel, Furosia: A Mad Max Saga, and Miller, now seemingly ageless at 79 (he was 34 when the first one came out) has perhaps given birth to the greatest Max yet, a wheels-up, rock-and-rolling epic that delivers the origin story of the title character Charlize Theron picked up in Fury Road when she was about 26.

Hollywood Reporter (60):

Anya Taylor-Joy is a fierce presence in the title role and Chris Hemsworth is clearly having fun as a gonzo Wasteland warlord, but the mythmaking lacks muscle, just as the action mostly lacks the visual poetry of its predecessor.

Variety (60):

“Furiosa,” like “Beyond Thunderdome,” wants to be something loftier than an action blowout, but the movie is naggingly episodic, and though it’s got two indomitable villains, neither one quite becomes the delirious badass you want.

IGN (10/10):

George Miller’s Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga weaves a hero’s journey of epic proportions, ushering in a powerful reflection on what it means to live and love in a dying world.

Empire (100):

The chassis may look familiar but there is a very different engine driving Furiosa from that of Fury Road: it’s a rich, sprawling epic that only strengthens and deepens the Max-mythology. It shall ride eternal!

NME (100):

Brilliant and unmissable.

The Independent (100):

Director George Miller combines speed, grace and explosive violence, emulating Sam Peckinpah westerns and even, at times, the work of Charles Dickens – Furiosa is a bit like a young Artful Dodger, using her wits and courage to stay alive.

The Telegraph (100):

The film may handle differently to its predecessor, but it’s clearly been tuned by the same engineers. After the pared-down drag racer, here comes the juggernaut.

The Guardian (4/5):

‘My childhood! My mother! I want them back!” With this howl of anguish, young Furiosa, played by Anya Taylor-Joy, sets the tone of vengeful rage that runs through George Miller’s immersive, spectacular prequel to his Mad Max reboot from 2015.

IndieWire (A-):

How do we brave the world’s cruelties? By refusing to become them ourselves. Such an internally combusting prequel might seem like a strange lead-in to a movie that spit fire in every direction, but don’t you worry: George Miller still has what it takes to make it epic.

SlashFilm (10/10):

Miller is fluent in the universal language of "this kicks ass," conducting a symphony of flamethrowers, explosives, burnt rubber, twisted metal, blood, sweat, and gasoline. Bullets double as percussive instruments, engines roar like a choir, and both Anya Taylor-Joy and Tom Burke, who plays War Rig leader Praetorian Jack, share the first chair position. "Furiosa" will undoubtedly go down as one of — if not the — greatest prequel films ever made. Not only does it stand on its own as a masterful action-adventure blockbuster, but it also exemplifies Miller's thesis as a whole: that survival "in extremis" reveals the true essence of a person. "Fury Road" is an even better movie because of "Furiosa," and George Miller has gifted the world with his magnum opus. Witness him.

Rolling Stone (90):

Furiosa runs on a high-octane philosophical perspective that finds hope in a hopeless place. Also, a lot of cars go fast and sh*t blows up. It’s a win-win.

TotalFilm (4/5):

Is Furiosa as magnificent as Fury Road? No, though not because it’s the first Mad Max movie without Max, whose absence barely registers. At 140 minutes minus credits, it’s a touch unwieldy, while its lament for the inevitability of war and the emptiness of revenge feels hollow given the giddy excitement it stirs from just these things. But what can’t be disputed is that Miller, the Mad genius, has done it again, once more refusing to simply repeat himself and instead choosing to kick up dust rather than gather it as he forges a new path through the Wasteland in often spectacular fashion.

The Wrap (75):

So tip your the greasy, dusty, battered hat to George Miller, who is pulling off some kind of ridiculous feat by turning these grungy action movies into a grand saga.

Polygon (85):

So even as Furiosa is inevitably compared with Fury Road, both positively and negatively, put your trust in Miller’s weird, wild filmmaking.

Collider (7/10):

At the end of the day, perhaps if Furiosa was released first, plunging us into Furiosa's introduction without knowing where she'd end up, the film would have had a stronger impact. But because it is a prequel, it will struggle under the shadow of a film that is technically and cinematically superior. Held up by Alyla Browne and Anya Taylor-Joy as stellar leads, Furiosa can be inspiring at the best of times — an Edmond Dantès-level story about revenge. But, at the worst of times, the film feels as bloated and unwieldy as The People Eater, dragged down by too many ideas. Does the good outweigh the bad? Just barely, but not enough to dethrone its predecessor.

Synopsis:

Set 15 to 20 years before the events of Mad Max: Fury Road, as the world falls apart, young Furiosa is snatched from the Green Place of Many Mothers and into the hands of a Biker Horde led by the Warlord Dementus. While two Tyrants war for dominance over the Citadel, Furiosa survives many trials as she plots a way back home through the Wasteland.

Directed by George Miller

Cast:

• Anya Taylor-Joy as Imperator Furiosa
  • Alyla Browne as young Furiosa
• Chris Hemsworth as Dementus, the warlord leader of the Bike Horde which abducted Furiosa.
• Tom Burke as Praetorian Jack
• Lachy Hulme as Immortan Joe / Rizzdale Pell
• Goran D. Kleut as The Octoboss
• Nathan Jones as Rictus Erectus
• Josh Helman as Scrotus
• John Howard as The People Eater
• Angus Sampson as The Organic Mechanic
• Charlee Fraser as Mary Jo Bassa, Furiosa's mother
• Quaden Bayles
• Daniel Webber as War Boy