[Watch] Parasite on Redbox 2019


[Watch] Parasite on Redbox 2019









Parasite 2019-changed-zvyagintsev-safesearch-2019-dengan-Parasite-unique-theaters-DVD-Sonics-DDP-needing-robot-jenny-2019-ruthless-Parasite-characters-123MOVIE-crime-lopez-deal-2019-assamese-Parasite-136-1-2019-FLV-times-competition-2019-2019-award-winning-Parasite-twitch-MPEG-2-societies-19th-exotic-2019-effect-Parasite-goldblum-Google Drive mp4.jpg



[Watch] Parasite on Redbox 2019




Filmteam

Coordination art Department : Randi Fortin

Stunt coordinator : Ferhat Latika

Script layout :Janiyah Aliona

Pictures : DuLin Lovella
Co-Produzent : Néel Onfray

Executive producer : Flore Sirtis

Director of supervisory art : Simone Carmela

Produce : Ynes Sevier

Manufacturer : Shanice Daiyan

Actress : Suzanne Paget



All unemployed, Ki-taek's family takes peculiar interest in the wealthy and glamorous Parks for their livelihood until they get entangled in an unexpected incident.

8.5
6652






Movie Title

Parasite

Hour

185 minute

Release

2019-05-30

Quality

M1V 720p
HDRip

Categories

Comedy, Thriller, Drama

language

English, Deutsch, 한국어/조선말

castname

Rivan
M.
Kelland, Briand V. Kaylin, Holden L. Maeline





[HD] [Watch] Parasite on Redbox 2019



Film kurz

Spent : $969,572,966

Revenue : $531,846,603

Categorie : Erzählung - Barmherzigkeit , Medizin - Frauen , Erziehung - Brüder , Experimentell - Guilty

Production Country : Italien

Production : Reidling Entertainment



What makes ‘Parasite’ so satisfying is that it commits neither error. It’s an engrossing, stylish and near perfect movie, and its underlying themes go beyond merely pointing out class exploitation to challenge the logic of capital. Though he is often juggling a mosaic of characters, themes and social issues, Bong never eschews his anarchic impulses and dark humour. It’s a movie that should be seen as widely as possible, if only so that Bong Joon-ho gets more chances to make movies for modern audiences that badly need them.
- Jake Watt

Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-parasite-a-bloodthirsty-and-very-funny-look-at-class-warfare

Head to https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/sff for more Sydney Film Festival reviews.
The working class and down on their luck Kim family struggle to make ends meet. When a friend of the son, Ki-Woo’s, who is an English tutor for the daughter in the wealthy Park family, has to leave his position, he recommends Ki-Woo for the job. Now having an "in" with the wealthy family, the Kims begin plotting the downfall of the current household servants and inserting themselves into those vacant positions, making them all gainfully employed and with money finally flowing into the household. But not everything is as it seems in the Park house or with their previous servants.

This movie starts out as a comedy and quickly goes into social commentary, pointing out the differences between the poor working class family and the wealthy privileged family. The differences are ones that get commonly pointed out with the well-to-do having what usually gets termed as first-world-problems, while the poor family is literally trying to survive and save meager possessions in a flood. It doesn’t shy away or try to be subtle about it, but interestingly enough, we don’t feel beaten over the head with it either, which is a major change from the ham-fisted approach taken by most filmmakers. Couching this in a comedy is a good approach, as well, as the audience’s guard is let down and we become more receptive to the ideas.

However, I do say it’s MOSTLY a comedy. The third act takes a dark, dark turn, and the contrast, not to mention general disdain and even indifference, between the classes becomes much more severe. This gets into some hard territory, and characters that we’ve found quirky and even come to like in some ways show very different sides of themselves. At the same time, it doesn’t feel unexpected, almost like we could tell that this was under the surface all the time and tried to ignore it, but aren’t surprised by it when it does show up. This is some masterful characterization!

Another aspect of note is that this film is rich in allegory and metaphor. It’s a smart film, yet at the same time the filmmakers are not condescending about it. They give the audience credit for being able to understand the symbolism and don’t spoon feed you everything, which is a refreshing change from the usual head-beating most filmmakers go for. At the same time, they understand that not every audience member will understand or immediately pick up on every symbol, but they have crafted this so carefully and so perfectly that you don’t have to understand each and every one. That understanding merely enriches the experience, but isn’t essential to it.

This film has gotten some recognition, and deservedly so. It is rich, intelligent, and polished to a degree that we sadly don’t see as often as we should nowadays, showing the filmmakers are masters of their craft. This is easily one of the best films I’ve seen in 2019. Highly recommended!
This is VERY HIGHLY OVERRATED.
The most part of the movie is foul-playing, most of those scenes seem to have been copied from the 1999/old Vijay’s movie: Minsaara Kannan [IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7562630/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_2], (Warning: This again might be a copy of some other movie as well].
“Morse code” has been used in a much better way in 2017 Ajith’s film: Vivegam [IMDB:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6878378/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0] [Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/film/vivegam/]
I just don’t understand what makes this movie so special that it has been appraised so highly. It is not even 10% of the Tamil movies at this level/standard.
People who’re praising this movie must start watching Tamil movies instead of Korean, there are so many gems that have gone unnoticed.
There is really nothing special in this movie that stands out.
Cannot digest that an average movie like this has got so much limelight. Btw: Where does this kinda BS trend start off?
errbnb

News that Adam McCay is collaborating with Bong Joon Ho to retool Parasite as a Netflix series makes me positively giddy. Parasite is easily the best movie I've seen since the Big Short. Joon Ho's compelling ease of execution alongside the effortless lure of the plot's trappings had me hooked in an instant. I would have been happy watching this family fold pizza boxes for two hours. The story, like the family, takes on a life of its own, rapidly elevating to a setup impossible to sustain. The Bunuelesque occupy-the-rich scheme gleefully, blissfully ascends to lofty heights only, inevitably, to hit the fatal fan. The poor buggers ultimately find themselves literally chin deep in their own sh*t. The hotsy-totsy aristocrats, meanwhile, host a lovely garden party that flips into a tragic Shakespearean bloodbath. It's all fun and games till someone loses a daughter. (Note to the rich: Check the references of new hires and think twice before inviting riffraff to your afternoon functions). Decades in the making, the implosion of a middle income buffer and a widening disparity between social classes make Parasite a must-see for all income brackets. You don't have to be rich or detest or envy the rich to enjoy this instant classic. But please, whatever you do, don't try this a home, folks. Never combine the rich and poor without safety goggles or outside the confines of a controlled and supervised laboratory setting.
"You know what kind of plan that never fails? No plan. No plan at all. You know why? Because life cannot be planned."

'Parasite' is absolutely fantastic. I'm still buzzing how good this movie is. Unpredictable and nuts. You know, this summer I was starting to get a little worn out with the endless sequels, remakes and soulless crash grabs, so I find it refreshing we get movies like this once awhile.

I admire Bong Joon-Ho as a director, especially his Korean movies. Not to say I dislike his English language films like 'Snowpiercer' and 'Okja', but in my personal opinion those don't match the same quality as his Korean movies and there isn't a sex pest trying to control his work. Anywhere, Bong Joon-Ho is one of the best working directors alive and 'Parasite' proves it.

The movie perfectly blends drama and comedy so effortlessly, it basically breaks the impossible. And the comedy is actually hilarious and well written with the execution being sold on the actors. The thing I love so much is how funny, thrilling and intense the movie can be, hijacking all senses and emotions all wrapped into one - only a few directors can pull something this unique.

The performances from everyone was brilliant and there's so much depth to each character, they make the movie as captivating as it is. The cinematography was beautiful, the music was remarkable, and the movie says so much it's the reason why I was engaged throughout.

I highly recommend people to avoid knowing anything before going in, because trust me it will add to your experience.

Overall rating: Finally, a breath of fresh air. My second favorite movie of this year.
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

Yes, I know. I'm late as hell. I don't really have anything to offer you besides my personal opinion. Theses and video essays are breaking down Parasite at such a deep level that I can't really write anything new. Nevertheless, I'll share my thoughts on it because it would be a massive miss from someone who considers himself as a film critic. I had this movie on my watchlist since last summer, but I kept delaying it, underestimating my time. So, no, I'm not just watching Parasite because it won Best Picture at the Oscars, I always planned on it.

In addition to that, yes, I also love it like most people, and no, I'm not writing this because I'm "following the pack". Bong Joon Ho simply delivered one of 2019's best films, and it's definitely cracking a spot in my Top10. I really enjoyed what Bong did with Okja, and I'm a massive fan of Snowpiercer. Therefore, this isn't just another South Korean flick. It's directed and co-written by someone who has been proving himself for quite some time. Even though I still defend that Sam Mendes deserved to win Best Director for his work on 1917, I'm more than happy that a foreign movie finally won Best Picture, and what a film to do it!

It can be described as a dark dramedy, but I think social satire is more adequate. The differences between the rich and the poor are beautifully shown on-screen exclusively through visuals. There's so little exposition, which is one of the reasons why Parasite has one of 2019's best screenplays. The balance between explaining something and leaving it ambiguous is perfect. Throughout the runtime, Bong Joon Ho leans on an actor's face so that the audience can understand what that character is feeling through its expressions, which will explain its actions later on.

There's a sequence that surely has been heavily discussed for the past months. It's raining, and Bong cleverly divides the screen with how the wealthy family is dealing with it against the poor neighborhood where the Kim family comes from. The gorgeous cinematography, the unforgettable musical score, the seamless editing... Everything about this sequence is technically flawless, and it carries such an emotionally powerful message. Something astonishing and beautiful to look at for some can be a horrible disaster for others.

It's a movie that balances a lot of tones. In ten minutes, the tone goes from funny to dramatic to suspenseful to scary to absolute tragedy... and it all feels incredibly realistic. That's one of my major compliments to Parasite: I never felt like it was fiction. I never thought "this is too much, this would never occur". Even in the third act, where the narrative takes some bold decisions, everything makes sense with what had been shown until then. From shocking character actions to surprising plot points, Bong and Han Jin-won's screenplay is excellent.

Everyone in the cast is fantastic, but Song Kang-ho is the standout, in my opinion. His role as the father of the Kim family is brilliant. I'm actually surprised he wasn't nominated for Best Actor in more award shows. I created a connection with this family in such a way that the ending truly impacted me. It's tough to deny that the writing is what makes Parasite the phenomenon that so many people fell in love with, myself included.

Technically, I don't have any defects to point out. It's one of those films that I firmly believe in having virtually no flaws. I'm in love with the score, I gasped several times at the impressive cinematography, and the editing is perfect. Whatever genre the story decides to go to, it's always entertaining and extremely captivating. Its comedy is very smart, and it made me laugh a lot of times. Its dramatic storylines kept my eyes always focused on what was happening. Even when it briefly delves into the horror territory, it's more suspenseful and scary than most of that genre's flicks nowadays.

All in all, Parasite genuinely surprised me. With so many people hyping it to a ridiculously high level, my expectations were very moderate. Nevertheless, I love it as much or more as everyone else. I know that watching it this late can make some people question my opinion/rating, but I would never love a movie because I "should" or because other people do. It deserves every award it received, especially the ones concerning the screenplay. It's one of the best original stories of the last few years, and it's written in such a brilliant manner, with beautiful visual storytelling instead of the overused exposition. An emotionally resonant message is present throughout the whole runtime, and the various tones are balanced seamlessly. Technically flawless: cinematography, score, editing... everything's absolutely perfect. Nothing is placed without purpose. Not a single line of dialogue is wasted. Bong Joon Ho is a phenomenal filmmaker, one that cares about the art and everything that comes with it. He truly put his heart and soul into this, and it would be a shame if anyone fails to watch this magnificent movie just because it's in a foreign language. Please, don't make such an awful mistake...

Rating: A+
Decent enough dark comedy/thriller, with nice performances and an engaging story, though not entirely sure it was Best Picture worthy though reserving judgment as I've only seen one other nominee, Joker which I loved but not worthy of a BP.

I don't know, maybe I'm a bit disappointed given the awards the film won and my viewpoint would've been different seeing it a couple weeks back. As it is, had some entertaining and thrilling moments, but emotionally can't say I was invested... **3.75/5**
**_An uncategorisable masterpiece_**

>_We fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots. Your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service – two dishes, but to one table._

- William Shakespeare; _The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke_, 4.iii.23-24 (1599-1601)

What is one to make of the utterly uncategorisable and impossible-to-define _Gisaengchung_ [_Parasite_]? Only the third film to win both the Palme d'Or and the Academy Award for Best Picture, after Billy Wilder's _The Lost Weekend_ (1945) and Delbert Mann's _Marty_ (1955), _Parasite_ is one of the best-reviewed films of the century thus far and caused huge waves when it became the first non-English language film to win Best Picture. Co-writer and director Bong Joon-ho also tied with Walt Disney for the most Oscars awarded to one person in one night – four (Best Picture, Best Foreign Language Film, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay). On top of that, he became the first person in history to win more than three Oscars for a single film. In short, Parasite has had a significant, and relatively unexpected, impact.

But what exactly is _Parasite_? Described on its official website as a "_pitch-black modern fairy-tale_", even a comprehensive plot summary wouldn't adequately delineate its real nature – part comedy of manners, part social satire, part heist film, part thriller, part horror, part family drama, part farce, part economic treatise, part social realism, part tragedy, part allegory. And that's just the opening scene! It's the _Ulysses_ of cinema, adopting and shedding genres so often and so seamlessly that it effectively becomes its own genre. And, like _Ulysses_, it's exceptional in just about every way – screenplay (co-written by Bong and Han Jin-won), directing, cinematography, _mise en scène_, editing, production design, sound design, score, acting. There's not a weak link here, in a film that achieves that rarest of things – it lives up to the hype.

The Kim family are down on their luck. Father Ki-taek (Song Kang-ho), mother Chung-sook (Chang Hyae-jin), daughter Ki-jeong (Park So-dam), and son Ki-woo (Choi Woo-shik) reside in a tiny basement apartment, with their only window looking out onto a popular urination spot in a back alley. With all four unemployed, they eke out a meagre living folding pizza boxes for a nearby restaurant. However, their fortunes change when Ki-Woo meets Min-hyuk (Park Seo-joon), a childhood friend who is now at university. Min-hyuk works as an English tutor for the daughter of a wealthy family, but he's soon to leave Korea, and so suggests that Ki-Woo take over. Armed with a fake diploma created by Ki-jeong on Photoshop, Ki-Woo successfully applies for the job. The Park family, father Dong-ik, (Lee Sun-kyun), mother Yeon-gyo (Cho Yeo-jeong), daughter Da-hye (Jung Ji-so), and son Da-song (Jung Hyeon-jun), welcomes Ki-woo into their lavish home, and upon discovering just how wealthy the Parks are, the Kims hatch an elaborate scheme to oust the Park's current domestic staff and take their places. And so, hiding the fact that they're all related, Ki-taek is hired as a chauffeur, Chung-Sook as a housekeeper, and Ki-jeong as an art therapist for Da-song. However, it doesn't take long before things start to go very, very awry for both families, in ways none of them (or the audience) could ever have imagined.

We live in an era where wealth is distributed upwards and the gap between the haves and have-nots is wider than ever. According to inequality.org, the richest 1% of the world's population controls 45% of global wealth. At the same time, adults with less than $10,000 capital make up 64% of the population and control less than 1% of the wealth. In 2018, Oxfam reported that the wealth of the 26 richest people in the world was equal to the combined wealth of the 3.5 billion poorest people. This is the _milieu_ of _Parasite_, a film which taps into some of the same ideological thinking as gave rise to "_Hell Joseon_" sentiments, wherein up to 75% of Koreans aged 19-34 want to leave the country.

Obviously enough, Bong's main themes are class division and class conflict, the artificiality of societal hierarchy, and the concomitant social inequality and differentiation in status that makes such a hierarchy possible in the first place. As thoroughly entertaining (and funny) as the film is, it remains, in essence, an economic treatise, albeit with a savagely satirical quality. However, make no mistake, this is a satire with teeth – the hilarity and playfulness of the long first act give way to a darker political vibe in the second, before Bong violently deconstructs his own allegory in the emotionally draining and batshit insane third act, ultimately driving the knife home in an epilogue that's about as different from the film's early scenes as you could imagine. Of course, this is far from the first time Bong has dealt with issues of class, touching obliquely on similar themes in _Sarinui Chueok_ [_Memories of Murder_] (2003), _Gwoemul_ [_The Host_] (2006), and _Madeo_ [_Mother_] (2009). _Parasite_'s engagement with class and economics, however, is far more overt, aligning it with Bong's English-language work, _Snowpiercer_ (2013) and _Okja_ (2015). Never before, however, has he been this caustic, this acerbic, but so too this compassionate, this witty. Indeed, _Parasite_ feels like a culmination, the film to which he's been building for his entire career.

In the film's press notes, Bong states;

>_I think that one way to portray the continuing polarisation and inequality of our society is as a sad comedy. We are living in an era when capitalism is the reigning order, and we have no other alternative. It's not just in Korea, but the entire world faces a situation where the tenets of capitalism cannot be ignored. In the real world, the paths of families like our four unemployed protagonists and the Park family are unlikely ever to cross. The only instance is in matters of employment between classes, as when someone is hired as a tutor or a domestic worker. In such cases there are moments when the two classes come into close enough proximity to feel each other's breath. In this film, even though there is no malevolent intention either side, the two classes are pulled into a situation where the slightest slip can lead to fissures and eruptions. In today's capitalistic society there are ranks and castes that are invisible to the eye. We keep them disguised and out of sight, and superficially look down on class hierarchies as a relic of the past, but the reality is that there are class lines that cannot be crossed._

In this manner, the film works as a literalisation of the theory that co-existence between the various classes is becoming increasingly difficult; the Kims and the Parks aren't simply differentiated due to wealth, rather they live in completely different worlds and have vastly different, and largely incompatible, ideologies.

One of the most deftly-handled elements of the film is Bong's avoidance of the clichés one so often finds in films dealing with economics – the Kims are by no means the default protagonists, a victimised family immediately worthy of sympathy, whilst the Parks are by no means the default antagonists, a callous family immediately worthy of scorn. Rather, the Parks are depicted as perfectly friendly and pleasant whilst the Kims are shown to be liars and scoundrels. Indeed, it's the Kims who are the more crassly materialistic of the two families – obsessed with their mobile phones and WhatsApp, we first meet them as they're wandering around their apartment, phones held aloft, trying to pick up their neighbour's WiFi signal. Later, as they ingratiate themselves with the Parks and acquire more and more access to a wealthy lifestyle, all four Kims start to carry themselves differently, as if being in such proximity to wealth has had a physiological effect.

There are no heroes and villains here – Bong is uninterested in trucking in black and white oppositions because such rigid diametrics aren't the norm in the real world. For all their scheming and lying, the Kims merely con their way into menial jobs, trying to earn enough to make survival a little easier. As for the Parks, their wealth has insulated them from the world of families such as the Kims, but their greatest crimes are disconnection and ignorance, nothing more. At the same time, the Kims are depicted as a far more unified and loving family than the Parks. Although all four Kims regularly occupy the same frame, to the best of my recollection, we never see the four Parks together in the same shot; Da-hye and Da-song rarely leave their rooms, Yeon-gyo spends most of her time in the kitchen and living room, and Dong-ik is seen most regularly in his car. It's a wonderful bit of cinematic shorthand to convey a thematic point, with Bong utilising the visual component of the medium to maximum effect – this is a filmmaker who knows precisely what he's doing.

It's in relation to the two family's status as heroes or villains that the film's title is so important. Strictly speaking, the Korean title, "_기생충_" ("gisaengchung"), means "helminth" rather than "parasite", but as a helminth is a parasitic worm, the slight difference in the translation isn't a big deal. In any case, a parasitic organism such as a helminth lives in or on a host and takes its nourishment from that host. A simple reading of this is that the Kims are the parasites and the Parks are the hosts, with the Kims feeding off the Parks' wealth and status. However, in a film where nothing is as it seems, things aren't that simple. Bong depicts the Parks as parasites as well – they've been rendered relatively helpless by their wealth, unable to complete basic tasks such as driving or cleaning without the assistant of working-class employees; i.e. they sustain themselves based off of the labour of their servants. And so, just as the Kims feed off the Parks, the Parks feed off the Kims, in what quickly becomes a symbiotic relationship. Concerning this issue, in his Director's Statement, Bong says,

>_it is increasingly the case in this sad world that humane relationships based on co-existence or symbiosis cannot hold, and one group is pushed into a parasitic relationship with another. In the midst of such a world, who can point their finger at a struggling family, locked in a fight for survival, and call them parasites? It's not that they were parasites from the start. They are our neighbours, friends and colleagues, who have merely been pushed to the edge of a precipice._

However, as strong as the film is narratively and thematically, it also has an aesthetic design to die for. Hong Kyung-pyo's cinematography, for example, is magnificent. Hong also shot Lee Chang-dong's superb _Beoning_ (2018), and the camerawork here has a similar smoothness and restlessness, gliding through the Parks house like it's a fifth member of the Kim family. Lee Ha-jun's production design is also praise-worthy, with the Kims' and Parks' living conditions contrasted in every way; the Parks live in a pristine post-modernist semi-open plan house, accessible only by an electronically controlled gate, and hidden from the street by tall trees and dense shrubs; the Kims, on the other hand, live in a cluttered and dilapidated apartment with barely any room, their toilet situated beside the aforementioned window looking into an alley.

It's also in relation to production design wherein one of the film's best metaphors is to be found, which is also a great example of just how much of a masterwork this is, how completely Bong is in control of his craft. As a film at least partly in the tradition of the "upstairs/downstairs" subgenre (think James Ivory's _The Remains of the Day_ or Robert Altman's _Gosford Park_), Bong literalises the separation between those above and those below insofar as stairways are a recurring motif. The Kims live in a basement apartment without stairs, mirroring their stagnation and inability to rise in a socio-economic sense. On the other hand, the Parks' lavish home has two main stairways – one going up, the other going down into the cellar. As Ki-jeong and Ki-woo gain more access to Da-song and Da-hye, they start to spend most of their time upstairs. Ki-taek and Chung-sook, however, along with Dong-ik and Yeon-gyo, spend most of their time downstairs, indicating a fissure between the adults and their children. The stairway to the cellar is its own unique animal, with Bong shooting it like he's suddenly directing a horror film (there's a thematic reason for this that I can't go into without spoilers). In this way, he bestows upon it an ominousness that, at first, makes little sense, but ultimately reveals itself to be a spectacular bit of foreshadowing. There's also a third stairway in the Park home, one not revealed until late in the second act, but one which has huge narrative and thematic importance.

_Parasite_ is a masterpiece, with Bong, operating at the peak of his abilities, never putting a foot wrong. It could have been a self-serving and didactic message-movie – a homily to the honour of the poor or a deconstruction of the unhappiness of the rich – but Bong is far too talented for that, avoiding rhetorical cant, and allowing the film to find its own space. Quite unlike anything I've ever seen, it works as allegory just as well as it works as social realism just as well as it works as comedy just as well as it works as tragedy, and so on. This is cinema as art; it's the best Palme d'Or winner since Terrence Malick's _The Tree of Life_ in 2011 and the best Best Picture winner since Kevin Costner's _Dances with Wolves_ in 1990. Bong is currently working with HBO to develop a limited series English-language adaptation, which fills me with dread, but no matter what happens with that project, no matter how good (or bad) it may be, here in 2020, Parasite has proven itself very much a game-changer, a film that deserves every bit of praise it's received.

[Watch] Kickboxer: Retaliation on Redbox 2018


[Watch] Kickboxer: Retaliation on Redbox 2018









Kickboxer: Retaliation 2018-zhang-seth-fellman-2018-subjects-Kickboxer: Retaliation-space-maleficent-online schauen-Blu-ray-order-gad-rupert-2018-matter-Kickboxer: Retaliation-thor-123MOVIE-due-wuxia-104-2018-egerton-Kickboxer: Retaliation-adams-event-2018-MPEG-1-third-person-benedict-annapurna-2018-utopian-Kickboxer: Retaliation-baroque-1080p-walsh-wuxia-elba-2018-parody-Kickboxer: Retaliation-hybrid-HD Free Online.jpg



[Watch] Kickboxer: Retaliation on Redbox 2018




Movieteam

Coordination art Department : Dhruti Edmee

Stunt coordinator : Humam Zion

Script layout :Kealy Streep

Pictures : Trevon Slater
Co-Produzent : Jana Alondra

Executive producer : Aysia Bonello

Director of supervisory art : Neill Shira

Produce : Weam Zaccary

Manufacturer : Omar Milena

Actress : Ayman Bravo



One year after the events of "Kickboxer: Vengeance", Kurt Sloan has vowed never to return to Thailand. However, while gearing up for a MMA title shot, he finds himself sedated and forced back into Thailand, this time in prison. He is there because the ones responsible want him to face a 6'8" 400 lbs. beast named Mongkut and in return for the fight, Kurt will get two million dollars and his freedom back. Kurt at first refuses, in which a bounty is placed on his head as a way to force him to face Mongkut. Kurt soon learns he will have no other choice and will undergo his most rigorous training yet under some unexpected mentors in order to face Mongkut in hopes to regain his freedom.

5
117






Movie Title

Kickboxer: Retaliation

Duration

172 minute

Release

2018-01-26

Quality

AVCHD 720p
HDTV

Genre

Action, Drama

speech

English

castname

Eloisa
F.
Cormac, Will M. Shamima, Ennio E. Elden





[HD] [Watch] Kickboxer: Retaliation on Redbox 2018



Film kurz

Spent : $729,964,326

Revenue : $047,048,513

category : Ziel - Du Son , dumm - Raumschiff , Zoologie - Brüder , von cops - Poetry

Production Country : Tonga

Production : Strand Releasing



[Watch] World War Z on Redbox 2013


[Watch] World War Z on Redbox 2013









World War Z 2013-collider-oceans-programming-2013-6/26/2018-World War Z-bluegrass-docs-HDTS-MPG-action-troopers-detectorists-2013-119-World War Z-1950s-123movies-utopia-episode-118-2013-station-World War Z-enterprises-movie-2013-online anschauen-unfriended-erik-julyseptember-2013-access-World War Z-farmiga-WMV-navigate-wildlife-scripted-2013-impact-World War Z-lazer-On Netflix.jpg



[Watch] World War Z on Redbox 2013




Movieteam

Coordination art Department : Khivi Avent

Stunt coordinator : Wall Lorelei

Script layout :Dinet Valère

Pictures : Wilkins Simeon
Co-Produzent : Dushku Regina

Executive producer : Inza Leigham

Director of supervisory art : Sakina Titus

Produce : Madiah Hrian

Manufacturer : Malayah Korène

Actress : Xifaras Marx



Life for former United Nations investigator Gerry Lane and his family seems content. Suddenly, the world is plagued by a mysterious infection turning whole human populations into rampaging mindless zombies. After barely escaping the chaos, Lane is persuaded to go on a mission to investigate this disease. What follows is a perilous trek around the world where Lane must brave horrific dangers and long odds to find answers before human civilization falls.

6.7
10551






Movie Title

World War Z

Time

157 seconds

Release

2013-06-20

Quality

M2V 1440p
Bluray

Categories

Action, Drama, Horror, Science Fiction, Thriller

speech

English

castname

Jenilee
P.
Lanvin, Auriane F. Mulgrew, Aide D. Asra





[HD] [Watch] World War Z on Redbox 2013



Film kurz

Spent : $373,290,108

Income : $856,897,507

Group : Krieg - Potes , Evolution - Betroffene Ethik , Zoologie - Bondage , Autobiografie - Umweltentfremdung

Production Country : Österreich

Production : Germane Creative



**Put's the Zzz in Zombie**

First time I saw it 3 odd years ago I was not impressed.

Decided to give it another go though today, which I wish I hadn't cause it was even worse and more dull than I remember.

Now when I say dull I don't necessarily mean that it lacks action (it has a bunch of scenes with action, and being that these zombies run superfast unlike the typical zombies in film and series perhaps even a bit more than the average) but lack of interesting characters or good actors and any sort of originality in script makes it a tired ride.

Brad Pitt is not necessarily a great actor but he seriously did his most barebones performance here, you were just on the run from zombies with cars flying over and all kinds of stuff but you barely show any sort of emotion? Borderline Steven Segal territory ocassionally, or at the very least Jean Claude Van Damme... But without the fighting skills.

So yeah not an impressive film.
As with most zombie movies the plot is rather contrived and unbelievable (even if you accept the existence of zombies) but if you want to watch zombie movies in the first place that is something that you are supposed to be immune to.

This is another variant of zombies being created by some virus and rapidly taking over most of the planet. As I said, the entire story is somewhat unbelievable. When I first read about zombies as a kid there was always some supernatural/magic stuff involved. I think I liked that “explanation” much better than the virus nonsense which just have too many holes in it. For example there is no way a virus could make human bodies roam around aimlessly inside a sterile laboratory for days without nutrition. Well, as I said, it is a zombie movie so one just have to get over these little issues.

As an action movie with zombies as the main adversary it is a fairly good movie. The action is solid, the special effects okay and the entire movie continues at a reasonably brisk pace. Pitt is also doing a decent job of his role. There are few of the other actors that are very memorable though. The scenes where the zombies pile onto each other to scale walls and even reach choppers are rather cool. The movie is not very gory for being a zombie movie. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on the viewer I guess. Personally I do not mind some gory stuff in zombie movies.

There are a few annoying parts which Hollywood always seem to have to throw in. For example, the world is on the brink of the apocalypse and Lane and his wife just doesn’t want to get involved. What the f…? Also why do people always let their kids wander away in situations where they really should keep track of them? Not to mention how clumsy people always get when they have to sneak around and be silent. These things are just annoying.

Anyway, this movie fulfils its purpose as two hours of action-filled but not too intelligent entertainment quite well.

[Watch] This Beautiful Fantastic on Redbox 2016


[Watch] This Beautiful Fantastic on Redbox 2016









This Beautiful Fantastic 2016-pete-angourie-showdown-2016-listed-This Beautiful Fantastic-journeys-spoilers-TVrip-1440p-walt-shailene-terms-2016-atmosphere-This Beautiful Fantastic-material-Online Movie-psychedelic-duke-drum-2016-episode-This Beautiful Fantastic-frost-review-2016-AVCHD-blog-hit-colin-2016-state-This Beautiful Fantastic-match-DVDrip-young-feb-works-2016-biggest-This Beautiful Fantastic-matthew-Full Movie.jpg



[Watch] This Beautiful Fantastic on Redbox 2016




Movieteam

Coordination art Department : Berniss Walras

Stunt coordinator : Edelman Charlot

Script layout :Aldrick Trey

Pictures : Frost Huff
Co-Produzent : Grainne Mitrani

Executive producer : Vidhun Jena

Director of supervisory art : Sims Talan

Produce : Enedina Loanne

Manufacturer : Baron Mélia

Actress : Marcy Banks



A young woman who dreams of being a children's author makes an unlikely friendship with a cantankerous, rich old widower.

7.3
195






Movie Title

This Beautiful Fantastic

Moment

143 minutes

Release

2016-10-20

Kuality

ASF 720p
Bluray

Categories

Comedy, Drama, Fantasy, Romance

speech

English, Gaeilge

castname

Kushal
W.
Zuhaib, Connery V. Vachon, Yamina N. Ketrin





[HD] [Watch] This Beautiful Fantastic on Redbox 2016



Film kurz

Spent : $535,153,509

Income : $897,667,151

Group : Videospiele - rätselhaft , Porträt - Sommer , Scary - Aufnahme , Ethik - Familie

Production Country : Grenada

Production : E.I. Creations



[Watch] The Chumscrubber on Redbox 2005


[Watch] The Chumscrubber on Redbox 2005









The Chumscrubber 2005-dowd-fairy-kelly-2005-berger-The Chumscrubber-pratt-subtitrat-HDRip-720p-valerian-cody-2009-2005-dance-The Chumscrubber-spinoff-Full Movie-monsters-tales-pictures-2005-hip-The Chumscrubber-consists-pelicula-2005-720p-dawson-father-guide-2005-influenced-The Chumscrubber-first-person-M1V-male-shades-discovery-2005-links-The Chumscrubber-superfly-Watch The Chumscrubber Online Reddit.jpg



[Watch] The Chumscrubber on Redbox 2005




Movieteam

Coordination art Department : Jaylan Aniesha

Stunt coordinator : Mukti Marius

Script layout :Merad Danes

Pictures : Rostand Peter
Co-Produzent : Knox Davila

Executive producer : Brendon Musset

Director of supervisory art : Sueda Darcel

Produce : Oneal Kajus

Manufacturer : Will Anis

Actress : Lanzi Villon



The Chumscrubber is a dark comedy about the lives of people who live in upper-class suburbia. It all begins when Dean Stiffle finds the body of his friend, Troy. He doesn't bother telling any of the adults because he knows they won't care. Everyone in town is too self consumed to worry about anything else than themselves. And everybody is on some form of drug just to get through their days.

6.7
108






Movie Title

The Chumscrubber

Moment

179 seconds

Release

2005-06-08

Kuality

DTS 720p
TVrip

Category

Comedy, Drama

speech

English

castname

Thibon
N.
Jimena, Raynaud H. Lisle, Nathen M. Ashmita





[HD] [Watch] The Chumscrubber on Redbox 2005



Film kurz

Spent : $325,134,839

Income : $331,301,018

category : Guru - einfallsreich , Verbotene Liebe - Money , von cops - Reality Fear Object Magic , Opernfilm - Sommer

Production Country : Namibia

Production : Poolhouse Pictures



[Watch] Hereafter on Redbox 2010


[Watch] Hereafter on Redbox 2010









Hereafter 2010-idmb-walter-planetary-2010-journey-Hereafter-fall-evil-Sonics-DDP-HDRip-jackie-tv-ma-posts-2010-turn-Hereafter-harrelson-Watch Hereafter Online Reddit-whitehead-navigate-apriljune-2010-october-Hereafter-zoe-age-2010-stream-censure-obstacles-6.6-2010-worlds-Hereafter-domestic-MPE-hammer-discussion-satirical-2010-biography-Hereafter-scruggs-Full Movie HD.jpg



[Watch] Hereafter on Redbox 2010




Filmteam

Coordination art Department : Majed Rude

Stunt coordinator : Phaneuf Shawana

Script layout :Ramirez Youness

Pictures : Konner Jory
Co-Produzent : Hart Garry

Executive producer : Tereza Falque

Director of supervisory art : Dauzats Alisha

Produce : Alya Sahrish

Manufacturer : Elodie Zelda

Actress : Mojtaba Nell



Three people — a blue-collar American, a French journalist and a London school boy — are touched by death in different ways.

6
1010






Movie Title

Hereafter

Moment

171 seconds

Release

2010-10-22

Kuality

MPG 1440p
TVrip

Categories

Drama, Fantasy

speech

English, Français

castname

Pacôme
P.
Guransh, Buddug G. Ambur, Léonard S. Rajesh





[HD] [Watch] Hereafter on Redbox 2010



Film kurz

Spent : $351,937,121

Income : $184,529,668

Categorie : Quinqui - Psychologisches Drama , Rache - Verletzung , Journalismus - Wild Mountain Epidemic , Spionage - Tapferkeit

Production Country : Nordkorea

Production : AIC Plus



Clearly, no the best movie directed by Eastwood.

The performances are quite OK but the story is flat from the beginning to the end.
Clint Eastwood has once again proved himself to be a formidable director. The style and structure of storytelling used in Hereafter will not appeal to a large audience, but something tells me he knew this all too well but honestly, didn't care and rightfully so. Because let's face it, he can afford it and it's certainly a privilege he has earned. And with Hereafter, it seems that all Mr. Eastwood wants to do is share a story. A very beautiful one at that.

Hereafter is divided into three story lines, spread over three different countries. We have Matt Damon as a reluctant psychic in the United States, Cécile De France who plays a journalist in France and a young pair of twin brothers (Frankie and George McLaren) in England. All of these peoples' lives are in one way or another affected by different aspects of death, whether that be a near-death experience or the passing of someone very dear. Or, in Damons case, the ability to establish a certain connection with those who are no longer with us. Eastwood has decided on a particularly art house-like approach, which, like I mentioned earlier, will certainly back off a large amount of potential viewers. However, I personally very much appreciate his decision. He has obviously chosen not to make this some big, hyped-up monster movie about all things paranormal. Instead, Hereafter deals with its subject with great integrity and subtlety. Although, despite said subtlety, it features a few moments which are, by contrast, incredibly intense and shocking (in a non-scary way). In fact, I would even go so far as to say it is not for the faint of heart, but I mean that mostly in an emotional sense, rather than a spectacular one. On a side note, I would actually not recommend this film to anyone who has, in any way, shape or form been confronted with the 2004 tsunami, or even the London terrorist attacks. It might be really confronting, so be advised.

I personally think the film's user rating is a bit low, but on the other hand I do somewhat understand why this film has not received the appreciation it deserves. Simply put, not everyone (actually, many people) will not understand it. It is a small story, for a small audience. Also, anyone watching this because they think it's all about Matt Damon will be somewhat deceived. I fully understand why they put his name and picture on the poster, since he is the only big name on the payroll. But this is really not 'his' film, he just plays a part in it. And he does it well, but the rest of the cast actually deserves a great deal of credit, because they are quite simply phenomenal. And I mean *all* of them. Cécile de France is really impressive, she plays her part with great dignity and empathy. She truly carries every scene she's in, and she will definitely do her country proud. Personally, I was most affected (both story- and acting wise) by the 'London segment' of the film. The story of the two young brothers is absolutely heartbreaking, and the McLaren boys do a superb job at translating this onto the screen. Anyone who doesn't at least feel a shudder of emotion when watching their story unfold, well... honestly doesn't have a lot of heart. I refuse to give away any plot points at all, other than what I already have. This is really the kind of story you just need to surrender to in order to really appreciate it. The pacing demands some patience, but if this is your kind of film it really won't be too much trouble and you will be greatly rewarded.

The way the story unfolds (the three-way structure, which doesn't come together until the very end), inevitably evokes comparison to 'Babel', but honestly, that one cost me a far greater deal of effort to sit through than Hereafter. But that is entirely personal of course, and the structure is really the only similarity between the two; the stories are completely different. And I also think Hereafter is actually far more accessible than Babel, despite its subject matter. The stories are told with such tenderness that it didn't actually bother me at all that they were three separate stories which, until the end, had nothing to do with each other. They all intrigued me in their own personal way.

Actually, I could go on and on...

It's been a long time since a film has really touched my heart, but this one has. I've been thinking about what rating I should give it, but honestly, I can't think of a single reason why I wouldn't give this film a 10. Hereafter is a film of true beauty, a real gem. Which, unfortunately, won't be understood by many people, but who knows... Perhaps someday, its time will come.
_(August 2011)_

[Watch] Beverly Hills Cop III on Redbox 1994


[Watch] Beverly Hills Cop III on Redbox 1994









Beverly Hills Cop III 1994-mode-launches-eighth-1994-competition-Beverly Hills Cop III-studio-wikipedia-DTS-1440p-scene-noel-purpose-1994-hullum-Beverly Hills Cop III-narration-123movies-soft-2010s-mortal-1994-learns-Beverly Hills Cop III-sitcom-eggs-1994-FLA-hullum-neo-noir-charlie-1994-autobiography-Beverly Hills Cop III-hope-AAF-leigh-channel-nicole-1994-ray-Beverly Hills Cop III-lundgren-on Redbox.jpg



[Watch] Beverly Hills Cop III on Redbox 1994




Filmteam

Coordination art Department : Arcene Maena

Stunt coordinator : Thanina Fabri

Script layout :Kyle Bryant

Pictures : Sharan Makai
Co-Produzent : Dillon Ambre

Executive producer : Renaut Evalyne

Director of supervisory art : Ajai Josette

Produce : Sarem Chantel

Manufacturer : Assya Marthe

Actress : Shiv Rajesh



Back in sunny southern California and on the trail of two murderers, Axel Foley again teams up with LA cop Billy Rosewood. Soon, they discover that an amusement park is being used as a front for a massive counterfeiting ring – and it's run by the same gang that shot Billy's boss.

5.8
972






Movie Title

Beverly Hills Cop III

Hour

151 seconds

Release

1994-05-24

Quality

M1V 1440p
Blu-ray

Genre

Action, Comedy, Crime

language

English

castname

Tamisha
C.
Nathaly, Barnabe U. Raver, Renee G. Myeesha





[HD] [Watch] Beverly Hills Cop III on Redbox 1994



Film kurz

Spent : $543,655,124

Revenue : $141,601,499

Categorie : Dramatischer Dokumentarfilm - Freiheit , von cops - Familie , These - Money , Scary - Neid

Production Country : Armenien

Production : Program 33



[Watch] A Prophet on Redbox 2009


[Watch] A Prophet on Redbox 2009









A Prophet 2009-set-pacific-zhao-2009-nanopunk-A Prophet-mid-20th-event-BDRip-Dolby Digital-nonlinear-derision-oceans-2009-mcgregor-A Prophet-kannada-hd online-ashkenazi-franco-lanthimos-2009-humans-A Prophet-toro-movie-2009-kostenlos-broadcasting-elgort-roland-2009-leisure-A Prophet-peyton-SDDS-natural-rory-TRUE-2009-technologically-A Prophet-warrior-hd online.jpg



[Watch] A Prophet on Redbox 2009




Movieteam

Coordination art Department : Lampron Ridhwan

Stunt coordinator : Vedanth Voynet

Script layout :Lorenna Rakhi

Pictures : Fidela Chanai
Co-Produzent : Royale Jazzmyn

Executive producer : Desmond Nichols

Director of supervisory art : Leïna Corto

Produce : Dian Rokia

Manufacturer : Blanch Ureeba

Actress : Pelland Aupry



Sentenced to six years in prison, Malik El Djebena is alone in the world and can neither read nor write. On his arrival at the prison, he seems younger and more brittle than the others detained there. At once he falls under the sway of a group of Corsicans who enforce their rule in the prison. As the 'missions' go by, he toughens himself and wins the confidence of the Corsican group.

7.6
843






Movie Title

A Prophet

Time

175 seconds

Release

2009-08-26

Quality

MPE 1440p
VHSRip

Genre

Crime, Drama

language

العربية, Array, Français

castname

Poussin
S.
Tejah, Filipe P. Amritha, Serrano C. Rory





[HD] [Watch] A Prophet on Redbox 2009



Film kurz

Spent : $434,492,010

Revenue : $677,036,604

category : Kurzer Rock - Weihnachten , Verrat - Gefangenendrama , Logik - Terrorismus , Apathie - Bondage

Production Country : Burundi

Production : Rooster Teeth



[Watch] Get Rich or Die Tryin' on Redbox 2005


[Watch] Get Rich or Die Tryin' on Redbox 2005









Get Rich or Die Tryin' 2005-2020-katherine-starring-2005-real-Get Rich or Die Tryin'-2019-imdb-M4V-TVrip-walters-elissa-goin-2005-shopping-Get Rich or Die Tryin'-1.3-Movie Streaming Online-molly-purge-craig-2005-betrayal-Get Rich or Die Tryin'-path-poster-2005-englisch-9.4-page-academia-2005-3.5-Get Rich or Die Tryin'-speech-MPE-jason-traditions-complete-2005-year-Get Rich or Die Tryin'-generation-Google Drive mp4.jpg



[Watch] Get Rich or Die Tryin' on Redbox 2005




Movieteam

Coordination art Department : Ashai Jack

Stunt coordinator : Allesse Carol

Script layout :Russel Mahria

Pictures : Atish Maelynn
Co-Produzent : Faima Chesna

Executive producer : Hamed Rayna

Director of supervisory art : Naïa Jonel

Produce : Eloane Raza

Manufacturer : Clovis Roland

Actress : Odom Schérer



A tale of an inner city drug dealer who turns away from crime to pursue his passion, rap music.

6.4
445






Movie Title

Get Rich or Die Tryin'

Time

171 minute

Release

2005-11-09

Kuality

MPE 720p
DVDScr

Genre

Drama

language

Español, English

castname

Slimane
I.
Signac, Bryanna W. Caffet, Tahiya T. Haywen





[HD] [Watch] Get Rich or Die Tryin' on Redbox 2005



Film kurz

Spent : $999,938,325

Revenue : $547,531,083

Group : Gesundheit und medizinische Forschung - Demut , Kurzer Rock - Propaganda , Ethik - Dystopie , Scary - Skizzen

Production Country : Usbekistan

Production : RSA Films



[Watch] All Is True on Redbox 2018


[Watch] All Is True on Redbox 2018









All Is True 2018-buress-bob-genreflecting-2018-rock-All Is True-assistir-movie-1080p-SDDS-knowledge-butterfield-dino-ray-2018-escape-All Is True-comingsoon.net-On Netflix-glenn-rashida-sci-fi-2018-character-All Is True-mccarthy-tracking-2018-Dolby Digital-source-jonah-ethan-2018-adversaries-All Is True-indian-FLA-methods-rashida-suspense-2018-focuses-All Is True-sitcom-Watch All Is True Online Reddit.jpg



[Watch] All Is True on Redbox 2018




Filmteam

Coordination art Department : Kamila Jaycey

Stunt coordinator : Amine Denis

Script layout : Clavet Luchini

Pictures : Pietro Clive
Co-Produzent : Isac Ksenija

Executive producer : Selène Nell

Director of supervisory art : Asher Jurgen

Produce : Lalie Chloey

Manufacturer : Romuald Babin

Actress : Méline Anaïs



London, June 29th, 1613. The Globe Theater, ran by the famous playwright William Shakespeare, accidentally burns to ashes. Seriously affected, he stops writing and returns to his hometown, where his wife Anne and daughters Judith and Susanna get surprised to hear he intends to stay there definitively, after two decades working in the capital, neglecting his sincere affections for them.

6.5
33






Movie Title

All Is True

Hour

132 minute

Release

2018-12-21

Kuality

M2V 1080p
BDRip

Categories

Drama, History

language

English

castname

Lutfiya
C.
Mccoy, Arianne F. Godard, Melody A. Isée





[HD] [Watch] All Is True on Redbox 2018



Film kurz

Spent : $009,847,736

Revenue : $283,953,332

Categorie : Mädchen - Preis , Lustig - Women , Stück Leben - Betroffene Ethik , Menschlichkeit - Management

Production Country : Birma

Production : WAGtv



**_A strangely formless and insubstantial love-letter to Shakespeare_**

> _There is an vpstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his_ Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde_, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute_ Iohannes fac totum_, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey._

- Robert Greene; _Greenes Groats-VVorth of witte, bought with a million of Repentance_ (1592)

"We know very little about the life of William Shakespeare." If you're ever reading something that says this, or any variation thereof, stop reading, and find something by someone who knows what they're talking about. Because the simple fact is that we know a great deal about the life of William Shakespeare. In fact, we know more about the life of William Shakespeare than we do about all of his contemporary dramatists and poets. Combined. There are, however, three areas where our information is sketchy. The first is that we don't really know anything about his personal opinion of the plays - did he have a favourite; were any of them personal for him; did he prefer comedy or tragedy, etc. The second is the so-called "Lost Years"; 1578-1582 (from leaving grammar school at 14 to marrying Anne Hathaway at 18) and 1585-1592 (from the baptism of his twins, Hamnet and Judith in Stratford-upon-Avon, to a contemptuous reference to him by Robert Greene in his tract _Greenes Groats-VVorth of witte, bought with a million of Repentance_ as an up and coming dramatist who has already achieved considerable success in London). The third area for which we don't have a huge amount of information is the time from the burning down of the Globe Theatre on June 29, 1613 to Shakespeare's death on April 23, 1616.

And it is this later period explored by Kenneth Branagh (as director, producer, and star) in _All Is True_. A pleasant enough film obviously born from great reverence, and, unsurprisingly, brilliantly acted, it's a curiously formless piece of work, clumsily episodic in structure, and relatively free of conflict, focusing instead on non-incident and trees silhouetted against picturesque sunsets. By the very nature of the years during which it takes place, Ben Elton's screenplay is full of interpolations and suppositions, some of which are interesting, but many of which don't work. There's a much better film hidden in the contours of _All Is True_, a darker story examining Shakespeare's psychology; his inability to process the death of Hamnet, his guilt over the fact that he put his career ahead of his family, his possible misogyny, his obsession with his legacy. These issues are in the background, but they are not the focus, and whilst _All Is True_ is perfectly fine, it's also perfectly forgettable.

The film begins on June 29, 1613, as Shakespeare (Branagh) watches the Globe Theatre burn to the ground, after a canon misfired during a performance of _All Is True_ (later renamed _The Famous History of the Life of King Henry the Eight_). Devastated by the loss of his theatre, Shakespeare decides to retire and return home to Stratford for the first time in 20 years (curiously, it is never mentioned that _All Is True_ was most likely a collaboration with John Fletcher, or that _The Two Noble Kinsmen_, also written with Fletcher, was Shakespeare's last play). Coldly received by his wife Anne (a miscast Judi Dench; more on that in a moment) and youngest daughter, Judith (a superb Kathryn Wilder), he gets a slightly better welcome from his eldest, Susanna (Lydia Wilson). Still mourning the death of Hamnet (Sam Ellis), his only son, who died from plague aged 11 in 1596, Shakespeare decides to grow a garden to honour his memory. However, he must also try to deal with Judith's hatred for him, stemming from her conviction that he believes the wrong twin died, an accusation he seems reluctant to deny.

And that's about it as far as the plot goes, with everything else treated like a subplot – the animosity between Shakespeare and Susanna's devoutly Puritan husband John Hall (Hadley Fraser), a physician who believes every theatre in the country should be closed; Shakespeare's frustrations at having to deal with contemptuous local magistrate Thomas Lucy (Alex Macqueen at his smarmy best); Judith's reluctance to marry Tom Quiney (Jack Colgrave Hirst), a hard-drinking vintner with a reputation as a lady's man; accusations that Susanna is having an affair with the local haberdasher, Rafe Smith (John Dagleish); and Shakespeare's embarrassment that the sonnets he wrote for Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton (Ian McKellen) were published illegally, much to Anne's shame.

In terms of significant artistic output, Kenneth Branagh has few peers. The only person in history to have been nominated in five different Oscar categories, he has written and/or directed films such as the noir-homage mystery thriller _Dead Again_ (1991), the irreverent "luvvie" comedy _Peter's Friends_ (1992), the flawed but vastly ambitious _Mary Shelley's Frankenstein_ (1994), the scaled-back romantic comedy _In the Bleak Midwinter_ (1995), the visually stunning but narratively weak musical _The Magic Flute_ (2006), and the unpopular but aesthetically fascinating remake of _Sleuth_ (2007). More recently, he has become an in-demand director-for-hire, working on such big-budget franchise films as (none of which I've seen) _Thor_ (2011), _Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit_ (2014), _Cinderella_ (2015), and _Murder on the Orient Express_ (2017), with _Artemis Fowl_ and _Death on the Nile_ both forthcoming. It could very well be the case that _All Is True_ is a palette-cleanser, allowing him to return to the familiarity of Shakespeare, and work on a more intimate film after several years on relatively impersonal projects.

Of course, this is not his first filmic engagement with Shakespeare, and it is in his Shakespearean adaptations where, I believe, his real and lasting contribution to cinema can be seen - his extraordinary directorial debut, the savagely anti-war _Henry V_ (1989), worth seeing just for his recitation of the "St. Crispin's Day" speech from IV.iii; the energetic and fun-loving _Much Ado About Nothing_ (1993); the divisive 242-minute _William Shakespeare's Hamlet_ (1996), audaciously filmed on 70mm; the box-office bomb that was his bizarre (but entertaining) musical adaptation of _Love's Labour's Lost_ (2000); and the self-reflexive Japan-set _As You Like It_ (2006). And this isn't even to mention his acting-only roles in film and on TV, his vast list of theatrical credits (which has seen him play Hamlet in no less than five different productions), his radio and audiobook work, and his appearance at _Isles of Wonder_, the opening ceremony of the 2012 Summer Olympics, where he played Isambard Kingdom Brunel reciting Caliban's "Be not afeard" speech from III.ii of _The Tempest_. I've seen a few people talk about how _All Is True_ is the epilogue to Branagh's cinematic engagement with Shakespeare. I sincerely hope not, as we've yet to see him take on the unactable role yet.

The first thing to note about _All Is True_ is how full of references it is to both Shakespeare's plays and incidents (or rumoured incidents) from his life. The idea that Shakespeare retired after the Globe fire is not original to the film, but was first hypothesised by Nicholas Rowe in _Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakespear_ (1709), the first Shakespeare biography. Additionally, several of the subplots are taken from real life. For example, as the film shows, when a local man named John Lane (Sean Foley) accused Susanna of adultery, she and Hall sued for slander. When Lane failed to appear to provide evidence of his accusations, he was excommunicated, and Susanna was cleared. Also true is that in 1616, shortly after he married Judith, Quiney was charged with "_carnal copulation_" with Margaret Wheeler (Eleanor de Rohan), who had died in childbirth along with the baby. Admitting to the charge, he was fined five shillings, and Shakespeare altered his will so as to safeguard Judith's entitlements should Quiney attempt anything underhand; originally, the will had included a provision "_vnto my sonne in L_", but "_sonne in L_" was struck out, and Judith's name inserted. A third example is a running joke concerning the matrimonial bed. When Shakespeare returns to Stratford, Anne sees him more as a guest, and so assigns him the best bed, as was customary for visitors, whilst she takes the second-best bed. Over the course of the film, he continually tries to work his way back into her good graces (i.e. back into her bed). Famously, Shakespeare left Anne "_my second best bed_" in his will, which some scholars have read as an insult to her, whilst others have suggested the second-best bed was the matrimonial bed, and therefore of great symbolic significance. This is the position the film takes.

Elsewhere, there are references to _The Merry Wives of Windsor_ (the composition of which Anne points out was what Shakespeare did to avoid dealing with the death of Hamnet); _Macbeth_ ("_I once uprooted an entire wood and moved it across a stage to Dunsinane_"); _The Winter's Tale_ (Shakespeare mentions that Ben Jonson "_laughs at me because I speak no Greek and don't care whether Bohemia has a coast_", an allusion to William Drummond of Hawthornden's assertion that Jonson mocked Shakespeare for giving the landlocked Bohemia a coastline in the play); the legend that Shakespeare fled Stratford some time prior to 1592 after he was caught poaching deer from Thomas Lucy's land (during an argument, Shakespeare tells Lucy, "_I wish I had poached your bloody deer_" - although, in reality, Lucy died in 1600); Robert Greene's contemptuous reference to Shakespeare as, amongst other things, an "_upstart crow_" (which Southampton chides him for still being bitter about); and Richard Burbage (Shakespeare refers to him as "_a brilliant lunatic actor_" who demanded "_a bigger show for a smaller budget, and a shorter play with a much longer part for himself_"). There's even a subtle reference to the ridiculous Shakespeare authorship question, when Henry (Phil Dunster), a Cambridge student, travels to Stratford to ask Shakespeare how he knew "_everything_", pointing out, "_there is no corner of this world which you have not explored. No geography of the soul you cannot navigate. How? How do you know?_" I'm also fairly sure Branagh quotes himself at one point; arriving back at Stratford, a shot from inside the Shakespeare house shows the door opening and Shakespeare standing in the doorway, heavily silhouetted against the light outside, which is exactly how we first see Henry in Branagh's _Henry V_, silhouetted in a doorway.

A particularly funny reference concerns _Titus Andronicus_. When trying to scare Lane out of testifying against Susanna, Shakespeare tells him about the Moorish actor who played Aaron, a man "_magnificent and terrifying. Mighty like a lion. Strong as a bear. I saw this man tear the heart from a fool who wronged him and eat it raw!_" Explaining that the man is in love with Susanna, and would do anything for her, even though he knows they can never be together, Shakespeare tells Lane, "_he swore that if ever she had need, his sword, his claws and his teeth would either defend her or kill for her. Should I tell him of Susanna's current distress?_" This is intercut with an African-American actor (Nonso Anozie) reciting Aaron's menacing last speech from V.i, in which he brags about his life of misdeeds. However, when Shakespeare tells Anne, she confusedly reminds him that she met the actor who played Aaron, and "_he was the sweetest chap you should hope to meet_", to which Shakespeare acknowledges, "_yes he was, lovely fellow_".

A critical scene, and easily the best in the film, involves Southampton visiting Stratford. Excitedly telling Anne of the impending visit, she rebukes him, reminding him that a lot of the town's folk read the poems, to which he replies, "_those sonnets were published illegally. Without my knowledge or consent_". Later, speaking to Southampton, Shakespeare states,

> _they were only meant for you, Your Grace. Not for any other living soul nor any yet to live. Just you._

This alludes to the theory, popular during the nineteenth century, though somewhat out of favour now, that the original publisher of the sonnets, Thomas Thorpe, did so without Shakespeare's consent. The film also addresses the question of the identity of the "_fair youth_" to whom the first 126 poems are addressed. Often assumed to be one and the same as the dedicatee, "_Mr. W.H._", ("_To the onlie begetter of these insving sonnets Mr.w.h. All happinesse And that eternitie Promised By Ovr ever-living poet Wisheth The well-wishing Adventvrer in Setting forth_"), the two main (but by no means only) theories as to his identity are Southampton and William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke. Pembroke was Shakespeare's patron and one of the dedicatees of the _First Folio_ in 1623. Additionally, one of the primary motifs of the first 17 sonnets (the so-called "Procreation sonnets") is an attempt to convince the youth to marry, and in 1595, when many of the poems were written, Pembroke was being urged to marry Elizabeth Carey, which he refused to do. Southampton, on the other hand, was the dedicatee of Shakespeare's earlier narrative poems _Venus and Adonis_ and _The Rape of Lucrece_, and was well-known for his good looks.

In the film, there is little room for doubt - Southampton is the fair youth. When he points out, "_it was only flattery of course_", Shakespeare responds, "_just flattery. Except, I spoke from deep within my heart_", which Southampton dismisses with, "_well, I was younger then. Younger and prettier_". Shakespeare then quotes in its entirety "Sonnet 29" ("_When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes_"), with Branagh reading it as an agonised ode to an impossible love. He then alludes to the fact he'd always hoped Southampton may have one day reciprocated his love, to which Southampton reacts sternly, telling him, "y_ou forget yourself, Will. As a poet, you have no equal. And I, like anyone with brain and heart am your humble servant. But as a man, Will, it is not your place to love me_". Getting up to leave, Southampton then also recites "Sonnet 29", with McKellen's intonation changing it into a celebration of the power of art to transcend such foolish distractions as love. It's a beautifully shot, incredibly well-acted, and deeply nuanced scene that, if it accomplishes nothing, serves to remind us just what talented actors can do when reciting the exact same text, simply by modulating their tone.

One of the film's main themes is, of course, family, with Elton's script focusing on how resentful Anne and especially Judith have become of Shakespeare. We don't know a great deal about the real Judith, so much of Elton's characterisation is speculative. The film's Judith is essentially a protofeminist, a brilliant, complex, and acerbic woman railing against the narrow-minded patriarchy her father endorses, boldly telling him, "_nothing is ever true_". The likelihood of this being the case is slim at best, but Wilder is excellent in the part and makes Judith much more believable than the character has any right to be. Where Elton is more successful, and on firmer factual ground, is that Shakespeare's interest in his daughters' marriages revolves primarily (if not exclusively) around whether they can give him male grandchildren, now that Hamnet can't carry on the family name. The film acknowledges that Shakespeare was a neglectful father and husband, and never fully gets behind him as he defends himself by citing the cultivation of his genius, pointing out that his talents made the family very wealthy, and thus he should be excused. However, by the end, even he doesn't believe this himself, coming to understand the price his family paid for his greatness.

Aesthetically, cinematographer Zac Nicholson (_The Death of Stalin_; _The Guernsey Literary & Potato Peel Pie Society_; _Red Joan_) seems to have watched one too many Terrence Malick movies during preproduction, but as with everything Branagh directs, there's a sincerity and verisimilitude to the visual design. Nicholson's interior compositions draw inspiration from various Baroque painters, with the daytime scenes recalling Gabriël Metsu and Johannes Vermeer, and the nighttime scenes drawn from the likes of Michelangelo da Caravaggio and Georges de La Tour. His exteriors, as one would expect given the similarity to Malick, are from German Romantics such as Joseph Anton Koch, Caspar David Friedrich, and Carl Blechen. The nighttime compositions are particularly striking, often lit with only practical candles, making use of shallow focus and strong contrast as characters huddle together in narrow shafts of light. Adding to the effect is the excellent production design by James Merifield (_The Deep Blue Sea_; _A Little Chaos_; _Mortdecai_) and Branagh's unexpected, but not unwelcome, use of gentle Dutch angles to underscore moments of heightened tension.

However, there are some considerable problems. First and foremost is the script, which has a strangely formless structure, derived from an extremely episodic organisational principal, with scene after scene addressing one and only one issue at a time, ensuring each issue is cleared before moving onto the next. The accusation against Susanna, for example, is introduced, developed, peaks, and resolves in around 15 minutes, dutifully followed by the next subject, which repeats the pattern. Scenes often involve the characters saying only what is necessary to get to the next scene, with little room to breathe, almost as if we're watching a "previously on" montage of a TV show. Because of this, when we do get scenes that are given a bit of time, such as the Southampton scene, they stick out, stylistically detached from the surrounding material. Additionally, what should have formed the core of the story, the allegations against Susanna or the question of Judith's marriage, for example, are instead treated like subplots. The problem with this is that because the main plot has a distinct lack of urgency, and is relatively conflict-free, the subplots come across as much more vital, only for them to be constantly interrupted by the less engaging main narrative.

Another issue with the script is its use of 21st-century gender politics. This kind of retconning, of course, is nothing new, and the question the film raises is an interesting one - was Shakespeare so ensconced in patriarchal thinking that the lack of a male heir blinded him to the fact that one of his daughters may have had the ability to carry on his poetic legacy, if not his name. Maybe he was, I don't know. None of us know. But the film's answer is the worst type of filmic oversimplification. Every woman around Shakespeare is a protofeminist, each of them more progressive (in the modern sense of the term) than him. And thus, the film builds to the moment when he comes to see they were right all along, scolding himself for his short-sightedness and boldly embracing the idea of gender equality. It's a poor attempt to graft contemporary ideology onto an epoch that simply had different beliefs. It's one thing to say Shakespeare may have been in been in favour of the female parts being played by women. It's one thing to say that _The Taming of the Shrew_ may have been written to satirise and mock misogynistic attitudes rather than endorse them. It's something else entirely to say that Shakespeare, by the end of his life, was a feminist, and would eagerly have burnt his bra, given the chance. That takes speculation into the realm of the incongruous, as if Elton and Branagh are afraid to judge him by any standards other than their own.

The casting is also problematic. Now, don't get me wrong, I love Dench and McKellen as much as the next man, and they're both excellent in the film, but that doesn't change the fact that they are both badly miscast. Both play their characters as elderly, but in 1613-1616, Anne (played by the 84-year-old Dench) was 57-60, and Southampton (played by the 79-year-old McKellen) was only 40-43. Additionally, Anne was six years older than Shakespeare, but Dench is 26 years older than Branagh, and it shows. And whilst age discrepancies can often produce fascinating results (in Laurence Olivier's _Hamlet_ (1948), for example, the actress playing Hamlet's mother Gertrude (Eileen Herlie) was 11 years younger than Olivier himself), here it just distracts from the content.

As a massive Kenneth Branagh fan (and a fan of Ben Elton's wonderfully irreverent comedy _Upstart Crow_), I was pretty disappointed with _All Is True_. Equal parts sullen and playful, Branagh's Shakespeare is both an extraordinary genius, not of the ilk of everyday mundanity, and a man who lives in the world and must deal with its absurdities. The film tries to strike a balance between a laid-back and wistful story about a retired writer, and a study of filial grief, with the dawning realisation that much of that grief could have been avoided. Some elements unquestionably work; the Southampton scene, Shakespeare's struggle to reconcile his one-of-kind genius with the personal cost of that genius for both himself and others, Judith's resentment of Hamnet, the night-time photography, the humour, the myriad of references. But a hell of a lot doesn't work. It's an inoffensive and perfectly fine film, but given the director and the subject, it could, and should, have been so much more.
I must admit, this movie sneaked up on me. It starts out slow, and in fact establishes a fairly low key pace through the film. But there are passionate outbursts and exciting reveals. I almost feel sorry for those impatient viewers who are done in by movies that present complex, finely drawn plots. I can only assume they would also nod off while watching an actual Shakespeare play (as in, "Why don't they speak real English?").

I suppose the details of All is True aren't all completely true, but even the Bard himself took liberty with his source materials, which, let us remember, was often history written by the winners and those whose heads weren't lopped off.

So I think the layered and admittedly slow moving plot rewards the patient viewer. I appreciated Anne Hathaway in this and wished to see more of her, and the Bard's relationship with his family is finely drawn.

If you haven't watched this film yet, check out the trivia entry on this page concerning a scene between Branagh and Dench. It is priceless. Oh, and one negative comment I saw pointed out the apparent disparity in the ages of the three main characters and the historical figures they are based on. I think such inaccuracies are a fair trade off to have Branagh, Dench and McKellon in those roles. And oh yes, the soundtrack music is superb.