The author who spawn the entire concept of zombies is dead. I have read that before "Night of the Living Dead" that the role that zombies fill in a movie was typically filled by vampires an example )

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jul/16/george-a-romero-night-of-the-living-dead-director-dies-aged-77

Night of The Living Dead was interesting, the first zombie shows up after a husband jokes "They are coming to get you Barbara" mocking her fear of cemetaries. End with the sole survivor being shot by a sheriffs deputy. The origin of the zombies, in 1950s sci-fi style, was a passing meteor.

Dawn of the Dead, the first sequel, improved and expanded on the concept and took the plot of a group of individuals deciding to take refuge inside a mall. This movie would be remade in 2004, its remake it also very good.

George A. Romero was a character in Call of Duty Black Ops:

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/George_A._Romero

When the once-dead zombie genre encountered a resurgence after the release of 28 Days Later, Romero ended up gaining a second wind of recognition for his work after countless zombie movies and zombie video games (Left 4 Dead, ZombieLand, etc, etc, etc.) started getting pumped out. 

Night was a masterpiece that inspired John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13, among others.

I'm expecting the other Romero to say a word about his namesake. 

The Beguiled - 7/10

Moody, understated and well acted period drama with probably some of the best cinematography in years (the aesthetic reminded me of Picnic at Hanging Rock and The Innocents at the same time). The last 15-20 min or so felt rushed, especially considering how languid and deliberate the pacing otherwise was.

(ps - I have not yet seen my blu ray of Don Siegel's 70's version.) 

A 10. Not a 10/10 with a beginning 10 and an end 10, a continous 10. 

Not sure it's a 10, though. I'd say it's a solid 7.5, maybe even an 8. 

But it's probably not as good as Arrival. 

as soon as I hit enter 

Because I saw a boring contrarian "it wasn't that good" comment coming as well. Maybe I can see the future... 

...did you foresee this?! 

The Arrival was a well-executed movie.

I thought the philosophical concepts in the movie were excellent ...

1) The aliens language is their gift. To communicate in it will change your mindset to a higher level and connect the dots to attain "foresight".

2) The aliens established contact with humans specifically because their foresight saw they will desperately need our help in 3000 years.

3) The main character has a daughter, despite her foresight telling her that her daughter will die young -- that she find her daugther's life irreplaceably special, but because she did not make her husband aware of the the daughter's short life span, leads to conflict with husband leading to divorce.

Far better than the shovel loads of sequels they have been pumping out. 

Yes I enjoyed it. Great concept and ending.

I found it a little frustrating and unrealistic the way the other countries acted in the end, though. Although I suppose that is what you'd expect out of a baby child like Kim Jong-un. Then we've got one president that rides horses with his chest out for his branding, another that communicates with the world via troll tweeting. Maybe not so unrealistic. 

When asked why they came ...

They responded "Use weapon".

And communication with them was a complicated and difficult experience.

A response of "use weapon" would certainly freak out some of the world leaders. 

Arrival took Kubrick's influence in a bad direction (slow and mysterious but ultimately pretentious and sentimental, even if the language idea was interesting and Amy Adams is always good). If you're going to take Kubrick as an influence it can be slow and mysterious but it needs to be complex, symbolic and even clinical, and that's what I got from Under the Skin, a way better "first contact" film (ducks).

Dunkirk was an intense film, from the very start the movie does an excellent job of making it feel like you're there; most of the time you're about to die horribly, and the rest of the time is boring and grueling if you can't do anything about it, and harrowing and guilt-ridden if you (think you) can. Nolan did a great job making viewers feel like we're drowning alongside evacuees and sailors or craning our necks for the next dive bomber attack, so I wouldn't call that exactly "fun," some scenes are extremely tense, but overall it is a great film. Plus its realism serves as a forceful reminder of what people were willing to put on the line to fight for their country only a generation or two ago, and I personally think that's relevant so that younger generations do not take everything for granted. Dictatorships do not naturally go extinct and nations with democratically elected governments do not grow on trees. 

Dunkirk - 7.5/10

Pretty good as an experience in terms of putting you there, particularly in IMAX70, but apart from the experience side of things I found it lacking in many other qualities. Also, putting you in the cockpit of the planes didn't necessarily lead to good dogfight scenes IMHO. I also found the timeline approach, whilst interesting (and I can understand why structurally the decision was made), to not add anything in terms of impact.


Wind River - 7-7.5/10

Extremely well shot and confidently directed (leaving aside the insertion and placement of a flashback sequence), but with a surprisingly straightforward and lacklustre script. Perhaps Taylor Sheridan wanted to focus on the directing side of things this time around but it was a bit odd to see that he would save, relatively speaking, his weakest script for himself. Having said that, the movie and characters have a very nice, lived in feel and the mood of the whole thing is excellent. The final shot is also amazing.


The Big Sick - 5.5-6/10

Found the writing and characterisations far too broad for the film to work convincingly as either comedy or drama, leaving it straddling a not very engaging middle ground. Probably didn't help that I thought the male lead, who is playing himself, to be a very flat performer. Also one of the more uncienmatic movies I have seen in quite a while. 

Only movie I've watched recently is Alien Covenant. Looks like everyone on IMDB rate it 1/10. What a bunch of pathetic little cunts. I wouldn't blame Ridley if he said right fuck these pack of useless whinging children I'm retiring from movies and enjoying my billions with hookers and coke for the rest of my life instead of giving the fanbase another Aliens movie. Years of work and all they do is bitch and claim "my life is ruined" because the movie sucked. It seems unless he makes a perfect movie, it'll bomb.

Not that I thought it was that great. It wasn't as good as Prometheus and predictable from the start. But that's what happens when you know how the last one ended and know where the Alien virus is supposed to eventually end up, and you know Bad David is bad. It was just an okay movie. Many critics seem to hammer all the stupid decisions and plot holes, but there's no more here than any other action or horror movie.

It would have been interesting to see what Blomkamp might have done. But rebooting the whole thing always seems like a cop out to me, like you aren't good enough to write something to fit the current story so just start again.
Imagine if someone came along to direct the new Star Wars and just said nah screw it, I'mma reboot this whole thing. Chappie was utter garbage (actually deserving of 1/10s haha) but those short movies he put out recently were good, so who knows.

Is it true Ridley is doing 2 more of these movies? How will they not be the same story again? Prometheus and Covenant were basically the same story. One just had badder David and more Aliens then the other. 

One thing that really annoyed me though, how do you go from the beautiful long haired beauty of Katherine Waterston:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Katherine%2BWaterston%2B2015%2BFilm%2BIndependent%2BR6i4MCPQAsql.jpg/220px-Katherine%2BWaterston%2B2015%2BFilm%2BIndependent%2BR6i4MCPQAsql.jpg

to this hideous monstrosity bowlcut (a tiny bit of makeup on set may have helped, just a tiny bit ffs)

https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&biw=1920&bih=870&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Katherine+Waterston+alien&oq=Katherine+Waterston+alien&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4.381270.382748.0.384590.6.6.0.0.0.0.375.651.2-1j1.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..4.2.650.J5gK92S6WcI#imgrc=WL1Gdv2YKp_IzM:

Way to kill an actresses career. 

she was still hot in the movie (though lol the second image you picked certainly does not convey that), but the movie was crap and for the love of god Ridley please just stop.

Looking forward to seeing Wind River, I loved Sicario and Hell or High Water. 

Apparently it was her idea to do the Jim Carrey Dumb & Dumber bowl cut hairdo, she talked Ridley into it. 

I assume they were going for a Sigourney version 2. But she's no Sigourney.

Sig had a unique sort of look where she could pull of attractive but tough as fuck at the same time and it didn't matter if she had the long curly hair, short messy, or none at all, she was impressive. Katherine just doesn't look tough at all.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--7uCqzMoG--/18j55kt21k3hzjpg.jpg

In fact it's a bit disappointing that they just killed Elizabeth Shaw off, way to ditch the lead character you just built the new franchise around. 

Depsite all the attempts to replicate Sigourney Weaver's awesomeness in the original film, they have never done it. She just sold it completely, even more impressive given how certain script decisions including which characters would be male or female, was done at the last moment (then again, random selection is better than allowing any political ideology to write your script/characters for you). If anyone hasn't seen the documentary about the making of Alien which features interviews with her and the writers, it's definitely worth checking out.

Also they never explained what David did to Shaw, and it's so frustrating to see the modern movies still be shit even after Alien vs Predator; with Giger's vision and some Lovecraft inspiration you COULD make a great film instead of rehashing tired of bullshit in increasingly inferior ways. Copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a....

Fassbender is great but he can't save a bad script.

P.S. lol the opposite of how they had to talk Javier Bardem into accepting his haircut for No Country for Old Men. He wasn't happy about it at all apparently, but it was awesome. 

Logan Lucky - 7/10

Nothing amazing, but definitely well made character driven entertainment. It's not quite as goofy as the trailer makes out but it still has its share of left field laugh out loud moments, plus the usual heist movie shenanigans.


Atomic Blonde - 5.5-6/10

Some neat action scenes for sure (although I wasnt a huge fan of the Max Payne/Matrix esque shot last one) but the tone is very serious for something that doesnt have too much substance. Committed performances from Theron and McAvoy only manage to take it so far. 

Jonathan of Wycke part one - 4/5

Very entertaining and has some beautifully filmed sequences IMHO. The fights felt really good too and I liked all the little details where he runs out of ammo and has to reload and so forth. Some of the dialogue to build up his persona felt a bit forced, though.

Jonathan of Wycke part two - 3.5/4

Still very entertaining and had a rather hilarious and elongated fight sequence in which they shoot at each others in an underground rail complex thing while other commuters walk past them. It didn't feel as fresh as the first one, though, and they really didn't have to show him kill someone with a pencil.

Joanna of Wycke - 3/5

Good fights but the cinematography started failing a bit here. It could have gone for more long and stabilising shots to establish the setting a bit more so we as viewers can settle in. The quick cuts made it messier than it should have been. 

miniseries was broadcasted on french TV tonight and I found it quite boring. I really struggled to keep my attention focused on the screen. Cinematography is bland and lightyears away from Kubrick's mastery, but that was to be expected.

My true grievances are:
- The actor playing Jack Torrance is nowhere near as good as Nicholson, who remains the all-time Sith Lord of psychotic characters.
- The kid looks dumb and I can't stand his twangy voice - he sounds like he has a shit-ton of snot held up in there!
- FX are too cheap, to the point where the whole thing looks kinda like a Z movie.
- The epilogue is downright cheesy AF. 

mother! - 5.5/10

I thought this worked on a metaphorical level only. And IMHO if all you are going to do is attempt to dramatise (not so subtle) metaphor, you need to have something interesting and thought provoking to say. And apart from the point of view taken here, I didn't find much of interest. 

Blade Runner 2049 - 8/10

Clearly a lot of work went into this, making sure it both thematically and aesthetically builds on, and does not just retread/remix, the first film. A little too overreliant on plotting than the first one, and I actually think it could have been a bit longer (or at least the back half should have been given more time than the first half) to flesh out the impact of some of the plot points more.

The direction however is very on point even when the script isn't and there are a number of stunning sequences throughout. Overall, a hugely satisfying film in its own right and as a sequel.