Animal Farm 2025/2026 by AverageMansReviews

Animal Farm 2025/2026 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/environment/animal cruelty/drowning/animal waste/medical. Even though this film is a PG, I would strongly recommend if you have children under the age of 12A to reconsider taking them to see this film; based on my opinion even though I don't have children [as of this content being created] it really is not suitable for them and I feel quite strongly about this project that there will more than likely; scratch that, there will be centred adult language references in this content at some point

Welcome to Animal Farm the 2025/2026 version: briefly; this farm gets taken over by the animals of this farm; including but not limited to Randolph [voiced by: one of the Producers/Director of this film; Andy Serkis:] he is Rooster that does what a Rooster is meant to do and there is be the farmyard's alarm clock. But our story mainly focuses on the pigs; as Lucky [voiced by: Gaten Matarazzo:] a kindhearted Gloucestershire Old Spots piglet; that has a best friend by the name of  Boxer [voiced by: Woody Harrelson:] he is not the brightest of shire horses, but he does put the effort in and is most definitely the hardest worker on the farm and then we come to Napoleon [voiced by: Seth Rogan:] he is very manipulative as a  British Saddleback pig as eventually he takes power of Animal Farm.

Generally speaking: Oh Wow we have a lot to talk about; I'm going to start with this statement; it is never nice for someone to get fired consequently lose their job, but having said that now slightly covers me for this...  fudge me I hope someone gets fired or heads roll for allowing this film to be green lit, because quite frankly it is tone deaf, you see when the original animated film was released in 1954 [and full disclosure I haven't seen that version as of this content being first created,] but in this point that in itself is not a big problem, because my point is; 1945 when the actual novel of the title Animal Farm: A Fairy Story was written by George Orwell, then published/released by Secker and Warburgin 1954; around this time period in history they all knew that capitalism was and is even in 2025/2026 and beyond eventually we are now in a situation where; there are more people that don't have, over those that have a lot and where the tone deafness comes into effect is obviously it is too late now and the irony of this cast a high percentage of them are old enough to have benefited by the current system that we have in place, so you are preaching to us on one hand, but on the other hand still benefiting from the system that you have just criticised that makes you by definition hypocrites and I don't know about everyone else, but the last time I looked in my own country of the UK they have been at least two major occasions where; the wealthy have profited whilst people are suffering Brexit from a decision that was made in 2016 and then roughly 7 years ago with Covid-19. Yet someone somewhere had the bright idea to come out with this remake which is so out of date and more importantly out of touch it is offensive.

So the storyline/script is frankly pig's manure all is; is a modernised retelling which is horrific to watch, though I can't tell you this enough even if I had kids or a nephews or nieces or even just babysitting there is no way in hell I would take my kids to watch this manure, all this is by today's language is virtual signalling hollocks, things are that bad the framework and pacing of this 94 minutes film is almost irrelevant; because this film is not a pleasant watch; but I will question one thing... why the hell do we have two characters in Lucky and Boxer providing voice over to this storyteller outlay from two different perspectives; it is just horse manure, why do it? It doesn't provide anything different or a different insight or anything positive; it will confuse some people out there, but I just think it is lazy, pointless and it makes this film sound/look/feel as if it was a brain-dead patient waiting for somebody just to pull the plug to put them out of their misery and that's the record yes I can use the brain-dead reference; as I have brain damage.

Art, action and comedy; the computer animation is standard; meaning it will do its job but there is nothing to write home about or put in this content, we see a member of the pigs driving this vehicle into this swimming pool and for the comedy; what comedy?

Character developments and voice performances; other than the character developments being essentially a paint by numbers approach what they were going for; the only thing I can say that was imaginative is a nutshell when these pigs didn't have much money, when they spoke to humans they sounded like pigs, but mysteriously when they had enough money behind them; the humans could understand them perfectly fine, as to indicate now you have enough wealth it also grants you a voice to be heard and on top of that there is only a small number of voice performances that could hold their head up high and say I did good work here for one example; it would have to be Harrelson; you just embodies Boxer as this they were made from one another.

This film receives: 1/10, this film is poor; I mean of this content being first created from a budget of $35 million it has only taken just over $6 million, this is one of those rare occasions where I would really like to see the negative award givers really take a look at this film and at minimum gives plenty of nominations, from me this is now the worst animated film project I have probably ever seen and it is now going to take something special/in a worse way for this to be beaten and this is no exaggeration, there were some extra bits and pieces as in moving through history as in on reflection, I hope this wasn't the case and I would very much loved me wrong and I am taking this with the utmost seriousness I would love to be wrong, I hope it wasn't indicating/implying that capitalism was and is always going to be there, because as it relates to a movie; this would be basically flying the middle finger and rubbing it in our faces; so allow me to finish on this very small statement; after everything is said and done; I hate this fudgin' film, because I didn't need to be reminded of how low I actually am on the social pecking order of things and I am not speaking for anyone; but I should imagine I am not the only one, that didn't need to be reminded via this film of you are either a have or a have not.

Norman: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer 2016 [alternative name Norman] by AverageMansReviews

Norman: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer 2016 [alternative name Norman] by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there are drugs/medical/suicide/references to Israel, Russia, racism and the rainbow community

Where are we now?: Briefly; this is a story about Norman Oppenheimer [Richard Gere:] he is a Jewish individual that is a social networker/fixer and we the viewers spend some years in his life and what goes on in it

Generally speaking: the storyline/script is very much based around our lead role, his hustle to get to a higher standing in life, the framework is very much an outlay of a theatre production with different Acts, but we have time jumps in those acts which greatly disturbed flow of this movie; so when it settles down it is good pacing, but getting picked up and dropped off somewhere else, quickly becomes monotonous, consequently disjointed and boring [I lost interest;] so when things are good; they are good, when they aren't as I have already indicated I lost interest; it became a chore, because you have to repeat the cycle of settling down and doing the same thing, getting picked up, dropped off somewhere else and repeat the cycle this film also goes on for roughly 118 minutes.

Art, visual representation of this project; really does feed into the whole theatre production side of things, from the aspect of; where things moving on from time to time; it is important to always remain keeping this world tidy and well presented from the wardrobe, to the scene designs and etc and we also have some choir singing.

Character developments and performances; the character developments are very much defined into their roles in their stations in life, the performances reflect those stations in life really well for most parts, a special mention needs to go out to Gere as our lead role; he does come across as someone that is really slimy and trying to elevate himself throughout his social climb, but when this film epic with sales is we don't know nothing about him, so by the end of it without giving too much away, without exposition character developments; it becomes very difficult for with the time jumps and so on and so forth and this on top; it is somewhat difficult to settle down with it.

This film receives: 5/10, this film is mixed; so when everything I have said in this content, this mark is the right outcome really. This film also has some awards accredited to its name such as 1 Winner National Board of Review, USA 2017 NBR Award Top Ten Independent Films and 1 Nominee which is Cleveland International Film Festival Best American Independent Feature Film Joseph Cedar

 

 

As Good as It Gets 1997 by AverageMansReviews

As Good as It Gets 1997 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning/Additional information: there is mental health/possibly psychological disability/animal cruelty/animal bodily functions/disfigurement/unpleasant references to a section of the rainbow community, underage inappropriate situation and child abuse and one censored adult language reference will be in this content at some point or another. Additional information; I'm stuck here, because our lead role clearly has OCD, but by today's standards I don't know if he has autism as well; high functioning autism or/and if it is him being a complete posterior, because that is him being him. But all I know is; because of the character developments at point or another this could be true, but all I know is if I don't acknowledge there could be more going on here and I miss it, then I know I run a very good chance of some backlash and just to cover my back; I am not saying people with autism of any kind can be posteriors; I'm just saying in this film and in this case he has no filter and/or struggles to pick up physical cues and from time to time really struggles with communicating what he actually means and finally if you are one of those kind of people; that doesn't like labels and so on and so forth; I really don't give two dumplings what you think, I am just trying not to get cancelled or/and receive backlash because I'm did or didn't mention what I just said.

What an interesting community for better or worse: briefly; we meet Melvin Udall [Jack Nicholson:] he is a highly successful novelist with OCD/other, he lives next door to an artist Simon Bishop [Greg Kinnear:] which he is highly successful in his own right; portraits and drawing people's body that kind of thing, he has a dog by the name of Verdell [Jill the Brussels Griffon] and his boyfriend Frank Sachs [Cuba Gooding Jr.:] he is an art seller and doesn't like Udall, moving on to Jackie Simpson [Yeardley Smith:] she is Bishop's am going to go with or/and publicists/assistant finally we have Carol Connelly [Helen Hunt:] she is a waitress where Udall likes to dine once-a-day and has to be served by her, so she has to put up with his shtick, but don't worry she gives as good as she gets and she has no problem telling him when he has crossed the line; this kind of steel only comes from going through tough endless times as unfortunately she has a very sick child at home by the name of; Spencer "Spence" Connelly [Jesse James:] he has a very compromised immune system, Carol does have some support at home by her mother Beverly Connelly [Shirley Knight:] she is a very supportive family member that doesn't mind supporting but also wants the best for her family; but after one horrific incident things start to change.

Generally speaking: the storyline/script, framework and pacing of this 139 minutes film is perfectly designed, so that throughout this set time we the viewers are just a part of these characters lives.

Art and action; now and again through this film there are some highly quality art; in the style of as I have already referenced and the action is something that serves its purpose.

Character developments, performances and comedy; there is a reason why I have dropped so many names and that is because regardless of the role size all of these characters bring something to the table; to create this every day atmosphere which this film runs off; predominantly they are all good versions of what they are meant to be, but with that being said; it does take these performances to take these character types and make them defined and in-depth individuals, but when this film has four spearheading this project in the form of Nicholson, Hunt, Kinnear and Jill the Brussels Griffon; where these humans are flawed, damaged or/and battle hardened; they are still good people; it's just whatever reason; be it learned behaviour or experience or disability they may not remember or no how to be who they are meant to be; based on their inner being, so this has nothing to do with money or else; as one is right at the top, whilst one is in the middle and the other is at the bottom financially broke; so as you see it has very little to do with financial wealth; obviously it would help, but I think also this film indicates without saying it; change what you can and leave what you can't and no that doesn't mean not to try and take responsibility for your debts for an example; but psychologically; change what you can, leave what you can't and aim to be the best person you can be and if you get a few nudges in the right direction from the right people that actually likely then every bit helps, it also highlights the importance of pets to those with mental health or/and disabilities as well and the comedy can range from doggy mishap to dark humour.

This film receives: 10/10, this film is top-notch entertainment; it needs to be seen once in your lifetime for its authenticity about life and this superb assembled cast of characters and performers, they should be absolutely no surprise, but this film has some awards accredited to its name; such as 38 Winners which includes but not limited to Academy Awards, USA 1998 Oscar Best Actor in a Leading Role Jack Nicholson and Best Actress in a Leading Role Helen Hunt. 54 Nominees which also include but not limited to from the same award ceremony/event Best Picture James L. Brooks Bridget Johnson Kristi Zea, Best Actor in a Supporting Role Greg Kinnear [altogether this film has 5 Oscar Nominations to its name.]

 

The Principal 1987 by AverageMansReviews

The Principal 1987 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there will be flashing effects/colourful effects/shooting/drugs/sexual assault/medical/references to many things, I am not being lazy here I just can't remember all of them such as cultural/population divided.

Brandel High School: briefly; this English teacher gets a job promotion Rick Latimer/Principal Rick Latimer [James/Jim Belushi:] well kind of he gets arrested for in a nutshell for this situation at a bar, so he has the choice of taking the job or it is indicated nothing. But this high school is the worst ever it is in the slums and it is an urban high school, so in essence they have sent in a screw up to sort out other troubled or/and lost teenagers in this heavily dilapidated high school location. Jake Phillips [Louis Gossett Jr.] he is the head of security for their school and once was a pupil here.

Generally speaking: the framework and pacing for this 109 minutes film is good, but it does have one quite obvious technical problem, the sound volume is an issue from the perspective of either way the background music is quite loud, whilst by comparison with a dialogue exchanges so if you put the volume up to hear the dialogue exchanges you may want to be prepared for the sudden loud music and yes as I was born in the 1980s I am aware, I am very much aware that in some films these technical issues or I am seeing it as a technical issue, but it may have just been a case of working with what they had and keeping in budget at the time of filming, we also have the usage of montages as well.

Character developments, performances, comedy and action; the character developments are very good versions of what you expect them to be of a dilapidated school with a lawless environment and characters to match with coming-of-age in some way or another, likewise the performances are excellent, and based on they are not the most polished performances, but in this location and environment you would lose the authenticity of these characters/performances if they were performed to highly anyway, they needed something gritty or/and not willing to tolerate either a new principal in town or/and what is happening in this lawless location; but a special mentions has to go out to Belushi, Gossett Jr. and Rae Dawn Chong as Hilary Orozco: she is a history teacher at the school: between this trio they really do support one another and lead this cast excellently. The comedy comes from dealing with this or being in this environment, so the comedy is mature based and the action as a result of dealing with these situations, so to the younger generations that read my content; yes you will see people in authority putting their hands on these younger characters, but remember this the punishment will always fit the crime and no I am not trying to justify it to you, but it is how you turn responsible teenagers into responsible adults hopefully.

This film receives: 10/10, this film is top-notch entertainment; it is well worth a watch at some point in your life there are only two major disappointments about this movie; the first is; it only made $19.7 million at the box office from a budget of $11 million and it could have done with a little bit more actually a lot more recognition in the way of awards be it winners or nominations; so as things are we have 1 Nominee accredited to this film in the form of; Young Artist Awards 1988 Young Artist Award Best Young Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama Jacob Vargas: as Arturo Diego: a good kid that can't read too well, by today's standards he is dyslexic.

 

 

The Birdcage 1996 by AverageMansReviews

The Birdcage 1996 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning/Disclaimer: there will be flashing effects/colourful effects/rainbow community component/transformation/political opinions could cause offence animal cruelty/medical/reference to suicide, racism and underage activity and anything I say about this film that may or may not be questionable, let's just keep in mind that I have seen this film and consequently just talking about in the context of the film itself.

These two very different families are going to be one family sooner: briefly; the groom comes from a very colourful background; a gay father Armand Goldman [Robin Williams:] he owns a drag club: The Birdcage alongside his life partner; Albert Goldman/other characters [Nathan Lane:] this person is a drag act and is definitely the feminine one in his relationship. The bride; comes from a very straight laced family; so much so her father is Senator Kevin Keeley [Gene Hackman:] a highly respected politician, that for a while need to get away from this scandal which by association he now finds himself in, let's hope he doesn't find himself in any more scandals as he is currently up for re-election and is married to Louise Keeley [Dianne Wiest:] the placid one most of the time.

Generally speaking: the storyline/script mainly focuses on a very short time in these characters lives and then again sometime later underneath the closing credits, the framework and pacing of this 117 minutes is good.

Comedy and character developments; Albert spends some time trying to teach his beloved how to be much more masculine, so he can act like an uncle of the family instead of his life partner just for tonight; but as you will see being masculine for Albert at any point being masculine is not easy for him, he can just about pull off a John Wayne walk, being feminine is for Albert comes very natural as a duck to water; which as you will see is a good thing as on this night where everything could go wrong, does go wrong and for my parts Albert/another character just about holds things together.

Art, character developments and performances; the art; costumes and accessories are immaculate they have done a fantastic job capturing the drag incredibly high standards of outfits and accessories and everything else really, broadly speaking the character developments and performances are either somewhat flamboyant, in the middle as in understanding or rigid to an old way of thinking; but then again if you don't have all three of these different perspectives this film wouldn't work, with excellent performances from the heart of this cast to bring this incredibly crucial moment in two people's with the right amount of warmth, love, catastrophe, comedic chaos, rigidness and a certain element of disbelief and coldness.

This film receives: 10/10, this film is top-notch entertainment; for it is still relatively modern approach to; parents still wanting to do the best for their child even though the parents are the same sex, I went to go and see this film on its 30th anniversary with the person I watch some of this content with at the cinema and yes this film does have an ongoing sequence underneath some of the closing credits. This film also has some awards accredited to its name such as 7 Winners; which includes but not limited to Actor Awards 1997 Actor Outstanding Performance by a Cast Robin Williams Gene Hackman Nathan Lane Dianne Wiest Hank Azaria Christine Baranski Dan Futterman and 25 Nominees would also include but not limited to; Academy Awards, USA 1997 Oscar Best Art Direction-Set Decoration Bo Welch Cheryl Carasik

 

Crazy Moon 1987 by AverageMansReviews

Crazy Moon 1987 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there will be flashing effects/colourful effects/drugs/animal waste/ hanging/disabled community/mental health/medical and any references I make towards being misfits, I mean in the confines of this movie only.

Two misfits meet one another: briefly; we meet Brooks [Kiefer Sutherland:] he is an kleptomaniac, afraid of water, struggling to deal with the loss of his mother, he also has a brother, they also come from a wealthy family and it is his birthday where his father has given him money to get a car, so he gets a motorcycle with sidecar. Brooks spots a nice young woman by the name of Anna [Vanessa Vaughan:] she is deaf from birth, but she can read lips, she works in a shop, she also lived with other deaf people and has plans to go around Europe on her own.

Generally speaking: the storyline/script; it is based around is short time in these characters lives and that is it; I am just indicating this is a situation/portion amount of these characters lives outlay and that is all we get. The framework and pacing of this roughly 85 minutes film is somewhat a liability; based on character developments and performances; one hand I get it; it is meant to construct Brooks' world with this 1940's music and wardrobe, which having said that wears incredibly thin after a very short time; so I get it, I don't have to like it, but I get it; either as a separate entity or a commanding aspect. But on the other hand; it does undercut our lead partnership from time to time especially Anna/Vaughan which I hasten to add is absolutely not a reflection of her performance; but if you have ever spent any time around different forms of disability; they all find their different ways to communicate to whatever level; so when you have our lead partnership communicating/without communicating this background music really does not our lead partnership off their stride from time to time; it is absolutely fine if they are dancing or running or swimming those moments are fine, but other than that the background music needed to go and that is me pretty nicely. But other than that the actual pacing is good.

Comedy, art, character development, performances and action; Brooks accidentally steals this mannequin, from Anna's shop and throughout the film uses it, in like a few different ways, you see when the background music doesn't feel out of place, more importantly when it is able to capture the on-screen chemistry between our partnership then it works incredibly well and how it should do with the physical aspects I have already referenced, we also have a coming-of-age component to this project between not only our lead partnership, but also between Brooks and his brother and then we have a change up of background music to signify a more mature Brooks. Broadly speaking the performances of this entire cast are all good, but our lead partnership of Brooks/Sutherland and Anna/Vaughan is absolutely spot-on and priceless so much so I feel comfortable without question saying without them this film would have fallen flat on his face.

This film receives: 7/10, this film is good; I wanted to give this film something slightly a bit higher, because of the positives, but because of the negatives being what they are this marking is the right outcome and there is an ongoing seen under some of the ending credits

 

The Christophers 2025/2026 by AverageMansReviews

The Christophers 2025/2026 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/drugs/rainbow community/medical/reference to a convicted sex offender

Briefly we meet: Julian Sklar [Ian McKellen:] he is a world renowned artist, best known for his series of The Christophers; he has two children, but there is one other thing he is renowned for and that is being a let's just go with controversial figure, because you will quickly understand he is a very outspoken individual, which his time is running out. Lori Butler [Michaela Coel:] she is to become Sklar's new assistant, she is also excellent at the canvas thing, but she has ulterior motives for taking this job.

Generally speaking: the framework and pacing of this 100 minute film is very good; as it just keeps things well structured, but also loose to glide throughout as things are swiftly progressing.

Art, character developments, performances, action and comedy; at points throughout this movie in one way or another we get to see a high standard of art, the character developments are excellently designed between these two performers and for the rest on both counts they are all good; but back to our original two; one is old, intelligent, the way the anarchist very much is his forte and making his own decisions. Whilst the other is younger is of the modern world [when this content is first created,] she is intelligent, of an hard-working urban mentality/background: so I am going to continue this with hopefully not getting cancelled; it is vitally important that she is of an urban origins, because it comes with a innate sense of self; meaning in a nutshell she isn't going to tolerate as if she was a Caucasian woman or/and she will back herself, would consequently Sklar will see this as a zestable mind and consequently give her the time of day [I should just point out that Sklar is not a racist; he is like this with everyone, if he doesn't think you are worthy of his time, you will get a certain version of him regardless of ethnic background or religious beliefs or anything else really;] but I digress; individually or together they are very defined people with beautiful on-screen chemistry; the action and comedy; well the bits I can safely put in this content revolve around Sklar either trying to cause or causing some anarchy.

This film receives: 10/10, this film is top-notch entertainment; it is most definitely a charming little film that needs to be seen once in your lifetime, McKellen continues to show that age is just a number and excellent performances may come wanted and while but class is permanent and for Coel; shows that spending time with McKellen or someone that calibre, can only hopefully benefit her career in the long run. This film also has some awards accredited to its name such as 1 Winner Sonoma International Film Festival Stolman Audience Award Best Feature Steven Soderbergh (Director) United Kingdom and 1 Nominee Miami Film Festival 2026 Knight Marimbas Award Steven Soderbergh

 

Tootsie 1982 by AverageMansReviews

Tootsie 1982 by AverageMansReviews

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/transformation/rainbow community component/sexism/sexual harassment/medical/references to suicide

Review Time

Way before Mrs. Doubtfire and others we had Dorothy Michaels: briefly; we meet Michael Dorsey/Dorothy Michaels/other characters [Dustin Hoffman:] he is an performer that wants to work in any way possible, he even put on acting workshops and goes for any audition he can get including but not limited to theatre productions, but even his agent has to time, he has been blacklisted from Hollywood due to the fact broadly speaking he is difficult to work with; so he vows to get work and not only that, also finance and star in his friend's Theatre production. Jeff Slater [Bill Murray:] he is the romantic playwright, roommate of Dorsay/Michaels; he is very good at keeping secrets and will help him out from time to time. A little time later and with a little bit of luck Michaels finds herself on this highly successful soap opera called "Southwest General" it is a medical-based soap opera.

Generally speaking: the storyline/script is best suited to be seen there is a drama project over a comedy and don't get me wrong it does have some comedy throughout from time to time, but drama is at its heart. The framework and pacing of this 116 minutes is good; but this film comes from the times when they use an obvious a noticeable presence of background music to create emotions and/or/both pacing; I know this is fundamental filmmaking and it will always be used in the filmmaking, but for back then I am just pointing out the usage and volume of it and from beginning to end this film is a little bit dry in its presentation; but then again there is an argument that this was how things were back in the 1980's, so I don't want to be seen as someone picking on something that represent a particular time in history, so I'm not picking on it, I'm just pointing it out really.

Character developments, performances and comedy; the character developments are least good and well grounded versions of what they were going for as in everyday people living their lives whatever that may be and from out of nowhere this woman Michaels goes on to affect everyone she comes in contact with in some way or another; this is very much a cast performance regardless of the size of the role everyone makes contribute something so there is absolutely in this wonderfully genuine authentic chemistry between this cast; yes I did just saying this is very much a cast performance which yes this is true... absolutely true, but putting this to one side for a minute; Hoffman makes this role/roles look and feel fluently effortless as they are parts of the same person, just different amounts on mostly everything, for the younger generations the comedy can be dry, yet again this may or may not have something to do with its time in history as in decade of release or/and good-natured with this one example of Michael explaining everything to his agent; basically a sum up of his current situation up to this point in the movie and throughout his agent has questions.

This film receives: 9/10, this film is excellent; after everything is said and done I have decided to award additional marked, based on everything I have discussed in this content, for a little while there is an ongoing sequence underneath the closing credits and man it does have awards to its name such as 26 Winners which includes but not limited to Academy Awards, USA 1983 Oscars Best Actress in a Supporting Role Jessica Lange as Julie Nichols/other character: she is a main cast character not only in this film but also the soap opera. 31 Nominees which also includes but not limited to from the same award ceremony/event Best Actor in a Leading Role Dustin Hoffman [altogether this film has 9 Oscar Nominees to its name.]

 

The Devil Wears Prada 2 2026 by AverageMansReviews

The Devil Wears Prada 2 2026 by AverageMansReviews

Previous instalment/Related content: The Devil Wears Prada 2006 Link https://averagemansreviews2017.blogspot.com/2026/03/the-devil-wears-prada-2006-by.html and then Average Extra of: The Devil Wears Prada 2 2026: My Reaction Link https://averagemansreviews2017.blogspot.com/2026/03/the-devil-wears-prada-2006-by.html

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/references to drugs

Runaway is trying to step through some difficult times: briefly; Andrea "Andy" Sachs [Anne Hathaway:] she has recently lost her job and being asked from up above to come into Runway and basically shaking up and become their new feature editor, she can bring her own selection of staff with her. Miranda Priestly [Meryl Streep:] she is still  the editor-in-chief of the Runway fashion magazine, it wasn't her idea to bring Sachs, but she is now married for the second time in her life to somebody new; Stuart Simmons [Kenneth Branagh:] he is a very supportive husband and as always she has Nigel Kipling [Stanley Tucci:] he is still doing his thing at Runway and remains her right-hand man, meanwhile Emily Charlton [Emily Blunt:] she is now a senior executive at Dior and moved on in her personal life as well.

Generally speaking: the framework and pacing of this 119 minutes film is good; they use from time to time accompanying background music or/and hectic workload montages; to give this sequel this upwardly mobile with gusto approach, look and feel.

Art; because we are in the world of fashion, expect some art in one way or another such as this Last Supper or this fashion show in Milan featuring a special guest

Comedy, character developments and performances; now we do have some comical bits and pieces such a Charlton making references to Sachs' eyebrows or/and Priestly's first assistant Amari Mari [Simone Ashley:] she is highly focused on the job and from now and again she has the unfortunate job of telling Priestly; that her language by today's standards can't be used, she will make reference to HR and basically fill in the missing gap, by using this comedy element from time to time it freshen things up and also they make references to the industry as of its previous instalment and possibly future when it brings up; something to the effect of when will I know when I have had enough. You see by using the past, the present and possible in the future it does a lot of the heavy lifting which in my opinion is necessary in this case or any case for a franchise that goes in this case two decades between instalments, so in essence they have been smart enough to acknowledge in every way shape or form that time has passed, time is never stopping, but also encapsulated this whole yet again approach and feeling of at this we haven't been way.

The newcomers into this; franchise/world are excellent additions as they slot in perfectly with the established cast; so this is very much a cast performance; spearheaded by established or/and newcomers of female characters and performers and liked Priestly being reminded about her language from Mari and consequently HR I am not being a sexist, I am just being factual and nothing more or less.

This film receives: 10/10, this film is top-notch entertainment; as I have only referenced it has moved and freshen things about, I am clearly not going to take any markings off for this, and this is just how this sequel kind of wraps everything out as if we could get another sequel in the future, which it has to be said if we don't... well this is just naughty filmmaking and yes just in case if you're wondering I have already looked for something like confirmation or at minimum something I have seen many bits and pieces saying in this that and the other, but nothing I feel confident putting down, so as things are I would say this again... if we don't get another sequel this is just very naughty. This film also has some awards accredited to its name; such as 1 Winner Digital Spy Reader Awards 2025 Movie Award Most Anticipated Movie Of 2026 and 1 Nominee The Queerties Queerty Next Big Thing Runner-up.

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man 2026 by AverageMansReviews

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man 2026 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/German Nazism with salute/terrorism/domestic terrorism/burning/animal cruelty/shooting/ritual/medical/references to suicide and hanging

This film is not worth watching: briefly; during World War II; the Peaky Blinders are being led by Erasmus "Duke" Shelby [Barry Keoghan:] he has somewhat tarnished the name of the Peaky Blinders and also found himself in a spot of bother with the Nazis, so Thomas Shelby [Cillian Murphy:] comes out of hiding to right the ship and seek some revenge.

Generally speaking: this film is that poor... No I will correct myself here and say that bad I don't know where to add to begin; the storyline/script is god atrocious, simultaneously character developments are pointless on any level be expositional or anything else for at least somewhere between 45 and maybe 50 minutes nothing of great substance happens and just to come back if something does happen by the end of it you are so bored already that you are past caring about it and if you're wondering in total this film goes on for 112 minutes.

Art, action and comedy; yes as you can imagine the set designs, scenery and costumes and other are very much top tier quality, yes we also do have some good action sequences with gunfire including someone pushing Thomas Shelby to be Thomas Shelby with an explosive ending; this is one of those moments where this film begins to feel and look like a Peaky Blinders film

Character developments and performances; the character developments are I cannot overstate this pointless and yes I know I have made reference to this already, but it is such a big point I thought I would make it twice; but as stand-alone character developments they are adequate for their problems and their performances were also I have to say it as it is; on reflection going through the motions.

This film receives: 1/10, this film is poor; people have been waiting years for this film and it is a complete waste of time, even though I am going to be a hypocrite here, because I have waste my time on it; I really wouldn't recommend you do it unless you are a massive fan of the TV program, but then again I wouldn't drastically change your expectations to something much lower, if you watch this film and yes at some point soon I will be creating some more content where I get to discuss the problems... the massive problems with this film, I just can't do it here and on completing that content I will be in linking it in at the bottom of this content; so it is optional if you want to read it or not and yes there are some good sequences or elements to this film, but the negatives so, so, so outweigh the positives that it is a massive counterbalance; to the point where I hate this film with a passion and finally there is an ongoing sequence in the ending credit and a message on screen.

 

Average Extra of: Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man 2026 is just So Bad Spoiler Alarm! Link https://averagemansreviews2017.blogspot.com/2026/04/average-extra-of-peaky-blinders.html

Dirty Dancing 1987 by AverageMansReviews

Dirty Dancing 1987 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/animal cruelty/burning/drugs/miscarriage/medical

Kellerman's Mountain House Resort in the Summer of 1963: briefly; we meet Frances "Baby" Houseman [Jennifer Grey:] she is a young woman that is on holiday with her family, she also goes by the name of Baby 99.9% of the time, she has a good idea of what she wants to do with her life as he tells us by an inner monologue, well that is until she meets Johnny Castle [Patrick Swayze:] he is a hard-working teacher of dance and dancer has a rebel streak to him, that life is not a straightforward as she has plotted out to be.

Generally speaking: the framework and pacing of this 100 minute film is good; but I need to quickly state by saying; it does a fantastic job of [I know before I continue that this is a happy coincidence;] of sending us back to the 1960s and it reminds us of what fabulous films were around in the 1980s.

Art, action and comedy; the first place to begin is the setting and all of that; they went with the authentic approach such as family unit getting away for a break, where you can learn many things such as dancing. The choreography is flawless: yes this will not be the last time I used this wording; because obviously it is an artform, but as you will see its used as a vessel for emotional, spiritual and I would be dumb not to point out yes there is quite clearly sexual as well: it is so flawless that later on I will be making reference lasting impression. We have training/practising montages with a couple of comical moments and fisticuffs much later on.

Character developments and performances; broadly speaking on both counts they are good versions of what they are meant to be and their performances reflect that and the chemistry throughout this past is vibrant. But let's be honest here it is down to Baby/Grey and Johnny/Swayze to why this film is in its own right a classic; as they naturally and flawlessly delivering on these key points; from two different world; Baby being well off and has her life somewhat mapped out, meanwhile Johnny comes from world of very little having to graft in his own way and work really hard, coming-of-age [just almost two different age brackets: Baby late teens; 17-year-old and Johnny mid-20s; 25] and later on for roughly a scene, we have this short-term role reversal in character types, where we have Baby being the real life person as her eyes are opened for the first time to what life could be/is for average people, whilst we have Johnny being basically a positive one so combined this all together with their on-screen chemistry you have something very special indeed and something of a legendary status of being Baby/Grey and Johnny/Swayze: as in they made these characters and performances priceless and cannot under any circumstances be rebooted/remade or anything else you can think of they are these characters as much as Hugh Jackman is James/Logan/Wolverine.

This film receives: 10/10, this film is top-notch entertainment; for the fact in popular culture even to this very day and be on, where people are performing this legendary final dance as their first dance when they get married. But sadly be in in the 1960s [where this film is said or the 1980s where/when this film got released:] it is a sad reminder of in 2025 [when this content was first created] and for the foreseeable future how far broadly speaking we have fallen behind/divided as a society, we have become because these character developments of our lead pairing and especially with there being the equivalent of too much even close contact and touching without the authorities being called. But back on to a positive note this is definitely one of those films that you need to see once in your lifetime, there are still pictures throughout the ending credits and yes this film does have some awards accredited to its name; 13 Winners that includes but not limited to; Academy Awards, USA 1988 Oscar Best Music, Original Song Franke Previte (music/lyrics) John DeNicola (music Donald Markowitz (music) For the song "(I've Had) The Time of My Life" and BMI Film & TV Awards 1989 Most Performed Song from a Film Patrick Swayze Stacy Widelitz For the song "She's Like The Wind". 9 Nominees which also include but not limited to Golden Globes, USA 1988  Golden Globe Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical Jennifer Grey and from the same award ceremony/event Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical Patrick Swayze

 

The Devil Wears Prada 2006 by AverageMansReviews

The Devil Wears Prada 2006 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/burning/vehicle hit/medical references to suicide.

Runway: briefly; this fashion magazine is being ran by the chief and editor Miranda Priestly [Meryl Streep:] she is a very high maintenance individual that has made her whole life this magazine and to the world of fashion, so this is why she needs 2 assistants; assistant Number 1: Emily Charlton [Emily Blunt:] she does all the general assistance things, including but not limited to answering the telephone and such things, but also she does the standing by Priestly and very much front of house that kind of thing, but also she gets to teach/treat assistant Number 2 as her assistant when Priestly isn't around. So we come to assistant Number 2 Andrea "Andy"/"Emily" Sachs [Anne Hathaway:] she goes on for this job that she really doesn't want, because she wants to be a writer/columnist or something to that effect, but slowly but surely she gets sucked into this world of fashion.

Generally speaking: the storyline/script, character developments, framework and pacing; the storyline/script is at best wafer thin and everything is based around an origin plot and developments [which I will discuss some of the more later on,] consequently the framework and pacing for this 109 minutes film is fundamentally sound and is of a good place, but then it hits you; we aren't actually going anywhere fast so it comes off like watching paint dry, so we were checking in consistently to see am under the film we had left to watch.

Comedy and action; I just have one question and that would be where is the comedy? No seriously where is it? Because I didn't laugh once and the person I watch some others content with; was also puzzled when I informed this individual this was meant to be a romantic comedy and for the action we have a character getting hit by a vehicle.

Character developments and performances; I don't think in my 15 years of content creating I have ever seen such a slow and on reflection agonising usage of basically the character developments known as coming-of-age, off the top of my head the coming-of-age thing happens with him the final section of this movie; it uses the outlay of something like a sudden realisation, which as the person I watch some of this content with referenced at the end; it is a laborious film and I can't disagree with this assessment, don't get me wrong the biggest asset and positive to this film by miles and miles and miles is predominantly the female performances, just for the record the men put in positive performances also, but as this is a female driven project; the females performances are the only thing to mainly write home about and if they weren't as pronounced as they were, they would have gotten swallowed up by essentially a nothing of a script and yes I am fully aware that this film and indeed its sequel comes from a series of books by the novelist; Lauren Weisberger.

This film receives: 4/10, this film is mixed; I mean by and large it is very generic, yes absolutely there are some quality performances but that is it really and I am now starting to wonder if this is just another case of too long between the first and it's sequel; The Devil Wears Prada 2 2026 release date 01/05/2026. But as the person I watch some others content said also the sequel couldn't be much worse than this film. This film also has some awards accredited to its name such as 21 Winners which include but are not limited to London Critics Circle Film Awards 2007 ALFS Award Actress of the Year Meryl Streep and British Supporting Actress of the Year Emily Blunt and Leggio d'oro 2007 Maria Pia Di Meo For the dubbing of Meryl Streep. 53 Nominees which are also including but not limited to Academy Awards, USA 2007 Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role Meryl Streep and Best Achievement in Costume Design Patricia Field and finally Jupiter Award 2007 Jupiter Award Best International Actress Anne Hathaway

 

Flashdance 1983 by AverageMansReviews

Flashdance 1983 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/body shaming/breaking/man on woman violence/references to the rainbow community, drugs and suicide

Let's dance: briefly; we meet Alexandra "Alex" Owens [Jennifer Beals:] she is an 18-year-old welder that works on the building site, but she is also a highly skilled natural dancer without training, that also is an adult dancer, that would like to get into this Pittsburgh Conservatory of Dance and Repertory: this is her story.

Generally speaking: the script: works on the basis of here and now and anything past a certain point; it doesn't matter based on we don't get to see it and equally yes we have this storyline going on, but basically this film is essentially designed like music videos of this timeframe in history and the framework and pacing of this 97 minutes film is straightforward; I mean it is a little bit difficult to describe based on if I had to simply describe it I would have to say; it does the job. I fully understand that it isn't the most quickest by any stretch of the imagination, but it moves at a solid pace.

As I have referenced like music videos; the art has two iconic dancing sequences; one where our lead character gets wet and her audition for entry to the place of a higher learning and sandwiched in the middle is this; action/training sequence where Owens gets really sweaty with her feet quickly going up and down on the spot and at some point there is this little scuffle involving some men over Ovens.

Comedy, character developments and performances; there are some jokes being told which to cover my back I should just say they may or may not be of the attitudes of that time, but the comedy reference I can put in this content would be this; Owens has this great alarm system for men that choose to follow her home. By and large the character developments and the performances are all good; there is good chemistry throughout. But let's be honest Owens/Beals leads this cast flawlessly as she is someone that is hard-working, wants to stand on her own two feet [but may have to realise that a little bit of help is sometimes useful] and ever so feisty: she makes this role are very own.

This film receives: 7/10, this film is good; even though this mark would seem a little bit low considering what I am about to say next; this is one of those films that you need to see once in your lifetime; it in bodies the 1980's and it is good enough for at least the one time viewing, even though full disclosure I have seen it may be twice. It does have awards accredited to its name and no not all of them are positive ones either; 14 Winners don't include but not limited to Academy Awards, USA 1984 Oscar Best Music, Original Song Giorgio Moroder (music) Keith Forsey (lyrics) Irene Cara (lyrics) For the song "Flashdance...What a Feeling" and Image Awards (NAACP) 1984 Image Award Outstanding Lead Actress in a Motion Picture Jennifer Beals. 17 Nominees which also include but not limited to back to the 1984 Academy Award Best Cinematography Donald Peterman, Best Film Editing Bud S. Smith Walt Mulconery and Best Music, Original Song Michael Sembello Dennis Matkosky For the song "Maniac" and moving on to the negative awards Razzie Awards 1984 Razzie Award Worst Screenplay Thomas Hedley Jr. (also story) Joe Eszterhas