Movie Review: The Medallion (2003) – Jackie Chan’s Immortal Misfire

Overview

The Medallion is a 2003 action-comedy film directed by Gordon Chan. Starring Jackie Chan, Lee Evans, Claire Forlani, and Julian Sands, it tells the story of a Hong Kong cop entangled in a supernatural conspiracy involving a mystical medallion.

Plot Summary

Jackie Chan plays Eddie Yong, a Hong Kong cop on a mission to rescue a young boy with mysterious powers who has been kidnapped by the villainous Snakehead (Julian Sands). Alongside bumbling Interpol agent Arthur (Lee Evans) and love interest Nicole (Claire Forlani), Eddie's quest takes him across the globe. When a daring rescue goes awry, Eddie is killed—only to be resurrected by the medallion’s mystical powers, granting him super strength and immortality. However, Snakehead has also tapped into the medallion’s power, setting the stage for a supernatural showdown.

What Works

Action Sequences: Jackie Chan’s early fight scenes display his signature charm and acrobatics, bringing energy to otherwise flat sequences.
Physical Comedy: Chan’s physicality occasionally shines through, particularly in his interactions with Evans and his trademark stunts.

What Doesn’t Work

Script and Dialogue: Clunky, unfunny lines weigh down the story, forcing Chan to wrestle with awkward jokes and poor humor.
Direction: Gordon Chan’s first western feature struggles with tone and pacing, creating a choppy and uneven film that fails to blend action with comedy.
Visual Effects: The final showdown’s CGI-laden sequences feel out of place compared to Chan’s naturalistic fighting style.

Final Thoughts

The Medallion is a misfire that tries to merge Jackie Chan’s martial arts prowess with Hollywood’s obsession with supernatural plots and buddy-comedy formulas. Fans of Chan’s Hong Kong classics may enjoy the fight scenes, but the clunky script and ill-fitting tone make this one a forgettable entry in his filmography. Have you seen The Medallion? Let me know what you think in the comments below!

Rating

⭐ Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Movie Review: Around the World in 80 Days (2004) – Jackie Chan’s Globe-Trotting Adventure

Overview

Around the World in 80 Days is a 2004 action-adventure comedy directed by Frank Coraci. Starring Jackie Chan, Steve Coogan, and Cecile de France, this remake of the 1956 Best Picture winner follows inventor Phileas Fogg as he attempts to circumnavigate the globe in less than 80 days with the help of his clever valet Passepartout.

Plot Summary

Phileas Fogg (Steve Coogan) is a brilliant but eccentric inventor whose ambitious creations frustrate the conservative Royal Academy of Science. After a bet with Lord Kelvin (Jim Broadbent) that he can travel the world in under 80 days, Fogg sets off with his new valet Passepartout (Jackie Chan), who is secretly on a mission to return a stolen artifact to his village in China. Along the way, they are pursued by the villainous General Fang (Karen Mok) and the bumbling Inspector Fix (Ewan Bremner). They’re joined by the spirited French artist Monique La Roche (Cecile de France), leading to globe-trotting adventures, daring stunts, and romantic entanglements.

What Works

Jackie Chan’s Action: Chan’s signature stunts, including the bench fight and Statue of Liberty showdown, are highlights.
Visual Charm: The film captures a playful, colorful globe-trotting spirit with fun locations and sets.
Monique’s Energy: Cecile de France adds charisma and wit to balance Steve Coogan’s reserved Fogg.

What Doesn’t Work

Steve Coogan’s Fogg: Coogan’s straight-laced portrayal feels flat, lacking the spark of his usual roles.
Uneven Pacing: Some slow spots drag the film down, especially for younger viewers.
Contrived Plot: The story relies on clichés and conveniences, with little regard for Jules Verne’s original work.

Final Thoughts

Around the World in 80 Days isn’t a faithful adaptation of Jules Verne’s classic, but it’s a colorful, family-friendly adventure with Jackie Chan’s trademark action-comedy charm. While it may try the patience of purists, it offers breezy entertainment for those seeking a lighthearted globe-trotting romp.

Rating

⭐ Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Movie Review: The Forbidden Kingdom (2008) – Jackie Chan & Jet Li’s First Team-Up

The Forbidden Kingdom is a 2008 fantasy adventure directed by Rob Minkoff. It stars martial arts legends Jackie Chan and Jet Li, alongside Michael Angarano. The film follows a Boston teen who finds himself transported to ancient China, tasked with returning a magical staff to its rightful owner while navigating a world of kung fu and folklore.

Michael Angarano plays Jason, a kung fu movie enthusiast from Boston. After discovering a mysterious golden staff in his favorite Chinatown pawn shop run by Hop (Jackie Chan), Jason gets caught up in a robbery gone wrong. When he’s knocked unconscious, he wakes up in ancient China. There, he meets Lu Yan (Chan) and learns the staff once belonged to the legendary Monkey King, who was trapped in stone by the envious Jade Emperor (Colin Chou). With the help of Golden Sparrow (Yifei Liu) and the Silent Monk (Jet Li), Jason must return the staff to free the Monkey King and find a way home.

Performance: Jackie Chan and Jet Li’s dynamic, particularly their brief fight scene, is a standout. Chan’s humor and Li’s stoicism balance well.
Direction: Rob Minkoff excels in choreographing aerial wire work and lighthearted fantasy, capturing the spirit of classic kung fu films.
Tension or Themes: The film blends family-friendly adventure with traditional martial arts motifs, offering an accessible gateway into kung fu cinema.

The plot feels clunky and overly expository, especially when delving into Monkey King mythology.
Michael Angarano’s performance lacks charisma, and the story leans too heavily on familiar tropes.
The dialogue can be wooden, and the stakes never feel fully engaging.

The Forbidden Kingdom isn’t the ultimate Jackie Chan–Jet Li showdown fans might have hoped for, but it’s an enjoyable family-friendly fantasy adventure with enough martial arts action to entertain. While the story falters, the film shines during its high-flying, gravity-defying fight scenes. Worth a watch for fans of kung fu cinema and those looking for light adventure fare.

⭐ Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Film Review: 13 Conversations About One Thing (2001)

Reviewed by Sean | Originally written: November 21, 2002 | Updated for seanatthemovies.blogspot.com

When the Conversation Goes Over Your Head

Don’t you hate it when someone tells a joke and you’re the only one who doesn’t get it? That’s exactly how I felt watching 13 Conversations About One Thing. After reading glowing reviews from critics and viewers alike, I’m left wondering—what did I miss?

From the minds of Jill and Karen Sprecher, the duo behind 1997’s Clockwatchers, this indie drama interweaves the stories of several New Yorkers grappling with fate, regret, and the elusive pursuit of happiness. It’s a film full of ideas—but for me, those ideas never quite landed.

Plot Overview: Intersections of Fate and Fragility

The film’s structure is a mosaic of loosely connected lives, each marked by a defining moment:

Matthew McConaughey plays a cocky, self-righteous lawyer who celebrates a courtroom victory at a bar where he meets a depressed insurance investigator, played by Alan Arkin. The man shares a tale about the fleeting nature of happiness. McConaughey shrugs it off, only to be involved in a hit-and-run accident on his way home—an event that leaves him morally rattled.
The victim is Beatrice (Clea DuVall), a kind-hearted cleaning woman whose sunny outlook is shattered in the aftermath. Her recovery challenges her relationships and sense of purpose.
John Turturro plays a college professor who abruptly leaves his wife (Amy Irving) in search of something deeper than contentment. His storyline runs parallel to the others, though the connection feels tenuous until the film’s final moments.

Each character’s arc reflects how one unexpected encounter or accident can fracture a life, and how our perception of happiness can shift in an instant.

Style Over Clarity?

13 Conversations About One Thing is structured like a puzzle. The film delivers a series of “Aha!” moments—revelations where storylines connect or repeat motifs across characters. Dialogue is often stylized, hinting that what’s said will echo later. Something uttered by Turturro’s character shows up again in Beatrice’s behavior. It’s clever on paper, but the execution feels forced.

The film also employs a non-linear timeline that left me more confused than intrigued. With so many secondary characters orbiting the four leads, it’s easy to lose track of the finer narrative threads. Important details are easy to miss unless you’re watching with intense focus. Case in point: Roger Ebert, in his glowing review, mentions Turturro’s obsession with routine—an aspect I completely overlooked. And apparently, that detail was key to understanding his character.

Final Thoughts: Searching for Meaning

Here’s the thing—I didn’t dislike 13 Conversations About One Thing. I just didn’t get it. I understood the central theme: that happiness, no matter how small, is a universal pursuit. But that’s such a broad idea. I kept hoping there would be more, a deeper message or emotional anchor. For me, it never quite materialized.

Still, I can’t deny this: the movie sparked great conversations. After watching it with friends, we talked about it for hours. Not about its message, necessarily—but about how baffled we all were. And maybe that’s the point. Maybe the movie isn’t about answers. Maybe it’s about asking the right questions.

If you love intricate, puzzle-like storytelling with philosophical overtones, you might find meaning here that I missed. But if you’re looking for emotional clarity or a satisfying resolution, be prepared to leave the theater scratching your head.

Verdict: 2.5 out of 5 stars

💬 A thoughtful, well-acted film that left me lost in its conversations. Great discussion fodder—but not a personal favorite.

Join the Conversation

Did 13 Conversations About One Thing speak to you in a way it didn’t for me? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Leave a comment below or connect with me on social media. And if you enjoy honest, reflective film reviews of indie gems and forgotten classics, be sure to follow Sean at the Movies for more!

Final Destination 3D (2009) Review – When Gore Meets Gimmickry | Sean at the Movies

Final Destination 3D (2009) Review – When Gore Meets Gimmickry

Directed by: David R. Ellis

Written by: Eric Bress

Starring: Bobby Campo, Shantel VanSanten, Mykelti Williamson

Release Date: August 28, 2009

Originally Published: August 28, 2009

A Familiar Formula, Now in 3D

It was George Carlin who once pointed out that “Final Destination” is a redundant phrase—after all, every destination is final. Yet in 2009, the franchise brought us The Final Destination, the fourth film in the series, wrapped in shiny new 3D packaging.

The premise remains the same: attractive young people narrowly escape a horrific mass-casualty event thanks to a psychic vision, only to be hunted down by death in creatively gruesome ways.

Exploding Racetracks and Predictable Mayhem

This time, our “final destination” is a NASCAR stadium, where Nick (Bobby Campo) foresees a fiery catastrophe. He manages to save several people, only to find that Death isn’t so easily cheated. One by one, the survivors meet their ends in elaborate, over-the-top sequences.

Highlights (or lowlights) include a flaming tire decapitation, a man dragged down the street while on fire, and a woman ground to pieces in an escalator. The audience I saw it with laughed like they were watching a stand-up special. And honestly? That might have been the right reaction.

Where's the Horror?

There was a time when gore meant something in horror. In films like Saw, death served a purpose, guided by the twisted but coherent philosophy of Jigsaw. Here, there’s no such structure. Just flying organs and splattered CGI.

I still love horror. I’m not above enjoying a splatterfest (*My Bloody Valentine 3D* was a blast). But there’s a difference between gory fun and lazy storytelling. *Final Destination 3D* confuses one for the other.

Final Thoughts

For fans of the franchise or gorehounds looking for a shallow thrill, *Final Destination 3D* might satisfy. But for anyone who craves actual suspense, stakes, or a coherent idea behind the carnage, this one’s a miss. A gimmick in search of a movie.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆ (2 out of 5)

Tags:

Final Destination 3D review, Final Destination series, horror movie reviews, 2009 horror films, Bobby Campo, David R. Ellis, gory horror movies, bad horror sequels, 3D horror movies, horror franchise fatigue, Sean at the Movies reviews

Revisiting Tobe Hooper’s The Funhouse – A Carnival of Horror and Disappointment Date: May 14, 2025

“A Carnival of Missed Opportunities: Revisiting Tobe Hooper’s Uneven Cult Slasher”

Tobe Hooper is one of my favorite horror filmmakers of all time. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t just a masterpiece—it’s a cultural landmark. But not every great director bats a thousand, and The Funhouse (1981) is proof of that.

In my latest review, I dive into this peculiar carnival-set slasher, now considered a cult classic by some, but still a tough sell for me. While the final act brings some much-needed energy and gore, the road there is long, meandering, and far too slow. It’s a film full of missed potential, weighed down by thin characters and a script that stalls for far too long.

That said, The Funhouse is far from worthless. Hooper’s love of old-school horror shows through in nods to Frankenstein, Psycho, Freaks, and more. There’s even an early homage to Halloween. It’s a movie that wants to be both a tribute and a terror ride—but struggles to deliver on either.

You can hear more of my thoughts on The Funhouse in the newest episode of the I Hate Critics Movie Review Podcast, available wherever you get your podcasts. We also upload full episodes to our YouTube channel and post trailers, movie news, and more on Facebook.

Read the full review on Vocal: [Horror.Media]

Follow me on Twitter: @PodcastSean

Find the podcast on Twitter: @CriticsPod and anywhere you listen to podcasts.

Let me know what you think of The Funhouse. Cult classic? Underrated gem? Or a swing and a miss from one of horror’s most important voices?

New Review on Vocal: “Shadow Force” (2025)

New Review on Vocal: Shadow Force (2025)

Posted May 13, 2025 by Sean Patrick – Sean at the Movies

If you’ve ever wondered how a solid, stylish action film can vanish at the box office before anyone notices, look no further than Shadow Force. The new film from director Joe Carnahan stars Kerry Washington and Omar Sy as ex-CIA assassins turned fugitive parents—and despite being packed with thrilling action, emotional beats, and even a Lionel Richie joke that works, the movie was seemingly doomed from the moment someone gave it that title.

I had a great time watching Shadow Force and even more fun writing about it. This one feels like a throwback in the best way possible: tight direction, great performances, and a totally adorable kid sidekick who might just be a future star. It deserved a better shot in theaters—and definitely a better title.

👉 Read my full review exclusively on Vocal

If you enjoy sharp, stylish action films with heart—and if you can get past the Cannon Films-era title—you might find yourself pleasantly surprised by Shadow Force. I was.

As always, thank you for supporting over 24 years of movie reviews here at Sean at the Movies. You can find over 2,800 reviews in the archive right here on the blog. Be sure to follow me on Twitter @PodcastSean and on BlueSky, and subscribe on Vocal for all my new writing.

🎙️ Listen to me talk movies on the I Hate Critics Movie Review Podcast!
💬 Like what you read? Share the Vocal post, leave a comment, or drop a tip. Your support keeps this going.

Crimson Tide Turns 30 – Why This Nuclear Thriller Still Holds Water

Crimson Tide Turns 30 – Why This Nuclear Thriller Still Holds Water

Posted May 12, 2025 by Sean at the Movies

This week marks the 30th anniversary of Crimson Tide, one of the most gripping military thrillers of the 1990s. Directed by Tony Scott and starring Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman, the film pits two commanding performances against each other in a tense ideological standoff aboard a nuclear submarine.

Crimson Tide turns 30!

In honor of its anniversary, I’ve published a full review on Vocal diving deep into what makes Crimson Tide still resonate after three decades—its political subtext, powerhouse performances, and that unforgettable scene with the Lipizzaner stallions.

Plus, this film is the subject of our latest I Hate Critics 1995 podcast episode, where Amy watches it for the first time and shares her reactions.

Read the full review here:

Crimson Tide Review on Geeks.Media

If you’re a fan of 90s thrillers, military dramas, or just love watching Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman go head-to-head, this one’s for you.

More reviews and podcast updates coming soon. Thanks for reading!

— Sean

Movie Review: Without a Paddle (2004) – Lost in the Woods and in the Script

Tags Without a Paddle review, Dax Shepard movies, Seth Green comedy, Matthew Lillard film, 2000s buddy comedies, Steven Brill, Burt Reynolds cameo, D.B. Cooper movies, road trip comedies, Hollywood formula films

Overview

*Without a Paddle* (2004) is a road trip comedy that leans heavily on formula and familiarity. Directed by Steven Brill (of *Little Nicky* and *Mr. Deeds* infamy), it stars Matthew Lillard, Dax Shepard, and Seth Green as three childhood friends reunited by tragedy and launched into a backwoods misadventure that borrows liberally from better films like *City Slickers*, *Road Trip*, and *Deliverance*. The result is a forgettable comedy that coasts on clichés and cameos rather than clever writing.

Plot Summary

Following the death of their adventurous childhood friend Billy, Jerry (Matthew Lillard), Tom (Dax Shepard), and Dan (Seth Green) reunite to fulfill a long-abandoned dream: a canoe trip in search of D.B. Cooper’s lost fortune. What starts as a tribute to friendship and youthful dreams quickly devolves into chaos as the trio gets lost in the Oregon wilderness. Along the way, they face off with an angry bear, a pair of cartoonish redneck drug dealers (played by Ethan Suplee and Abraham Benrubi), a crooked sheriff, and nature itself. Helping—or possibly hindering—them is a grizzled backwoods recluse played by Burt Reynolds, whose appearance seems to serve more as a pop culture wink than an acting choice.

Highlights

D.B. Cooper premise: A great idea buried beneath lazy gags and flat execution. The legend of Cooper deserved a better movie.
Comedy trio chemistry: While the characters are written as caricatures, Lillard, Shepard, and Green do their best with what little they’re given.
Nature scenes: Some of the outdoor cinematography is pleasant—when it’s not being used for slapstick bear chases.

What Doesn’t Work

Generic script: The film follows a strict comedy formula, with little originality and no risk-taking.
Unseen backstories: The more intriguing lives of the characters—especially the deceased Billy and wild-child Tom—are told, not shown.
Burt Reynolds cameo: Played for laughs, but the movie gives him nothing to do except remind you of better films.
Lazy writing: Characters are broad stereotypes (the neurotic nerd, the slacker ladies' man, the directionless nice guy) used in place of real development or clever dialogue.

Final Thoughts

While *Without a Paddle* isn’t offensively bad, it’s the kind of comedy that feels engineered by committee rather than inspired by creativity. Screenwriters Mitch Rouse and Jay Leggett crib elements from more successful films without adding anything original to the mix. It’s mildly amusing at times—mostly thanks to reflexive laughs from remembering better movies—but ultimately forgettable. This is the cinematic equivalent of fast food: easy to consume, completely disposable, and barely satisfying.

Rating

⭐ Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

Call to Action

Do you think *Without a Paddle* deserves cult status or should it stay forgotten? Leave your thoughts below!

Check out our reviews of early 2000s comedies right here.

Movie Review: X2: X-Men United (2003) – Mutants, Mayhem, and Military Conspiracies

Tags X2 movie review, X-Men United, Bryan Singer, Hugh Jackman Wolverine, Alan Cumming Nightcrawler, early 2000s blockbusters, Marvel movies, comic book films, superhero sequels, summer popcorn movies

Overview

*X2: X-Men United* picks up where 2000’s *X-Men* left off, expanding the story and scale while doubling down on slick action and mutant spectacle. Directed by Bryan Singer, this sequel brings Professor X’s team of super-powered outsiders together with longtime adversary Magneto to fight a common enemy: a rogue military general with sinister plans for all mutantkind. It’s a classic setup for a summer blockbuster—one that delivers well-executed set pieces and enough character moments to keep fans entertained.

Plot Summary

After a mutant named Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming) launches a jaw-dropping attack on the White House, anti-mutant hysteria reignites. General Stryker (Brian Cox), a military hardliner with ties to Wolverine’s mysterious past, uses the incident to push for a strike against Xavier’s School for the Gifted. When Stryker’s forces raid the school, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is thrust into a protector role, escaping with several young mutants—including Rogue, Iceman, and Pyro.

As Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and Cyclops (James Marsden) are captured, Storm (Halle Berry) and Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) search for Nightcrawler to understand the reason behind his attack. Eventually, the X-Men must join forces with Magneto (Ian McKellen) and Mystique (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) to stop Stryker from launching a war that could wipe out all mutants.

Highlights

Nightcrawler’s White House attack: A stunning opening sequence that blends teleportation, combat, and high-stakes tension.
Wolverine’s humor: Surprisingly, much of the film’s levity comes from Jackman’s gruff mutant in babysitter mode—his banter with the students adds charm.
Magneto’s entrance: As always, Ian McKellen makes Magneto a charismatic and dangerous presence. His last-minute rescue of the X-jet crew is a scene-stealer.
“Coming out” metaphor: Iceman revealing his powers to his family is handled with subtlety and becomes one of the film’s more resonant emotional beats.

What Doesn’t Work

Uneven character focus: While Wolverine gets ample screen time, other characters like Storm and Cyclops still feel underdeveloped.
Overstuffed cast: With so many mutants and subplots, it’s hard for each character to make a meaningful impression.
Effects overshadowed: While the film’s visuals are strong, they pale in comparison to the then-new *Matrix Reloaded* trailer—ironically shown before the movie.

Final Thoughts

*X2: X-Men United* improves on its predecessor in scope and confidence. It successfully juggles multiple storylines, delivers solid action, and sets the stage for bigger things in the franchise. While not quite in the same league as *Spider-Man* or *Batman*, it’s a polished entry in the superhero genre that knows exactly what kind of crowd-pleasing entertainment it wants to be. Hugh Jackman continues to prove he’s the franchise’s backbone, even if the spotlight dims the more he’s on screen. Overall, a fun and well-crafted sequel that helped cement the X-Men as major players in early 2000s comic book cinema.

Rating

⭐ Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Call to Action

Did *X2* set the gold standard for early superhero sequels? Let us know in the comments!

Check out our full Marvel movie reviews archive for more mutant mayhem.

Movie Review: xXx (2002) – Vin Diesel’s Bond Wannabe is All Stunts, No Substance

Tags xXx movie review, Vin Diesel, Rob Cohen, early 2000s action, Samuel L. Jackson, Asia Argento, Fast and the Furious, extreme sports movies, spy thrillers, action movie franchises

Overview

After *The Fast and the Furious* redefined car-chase cinema for the early 2000s, director Rob Cohen and star Vin Diesel reunited for *xXx*, a would-be franchise launcher that replaces underground racing with extreme sports espionage. On paper, it's James Bond for the Mountain Dew generation. In practice, it’s all style, no soul.

Plot Summary

Vin Diesel plays Xander Cage, an extreme sports outlaw and underground celebrity who records himself pulling off illegal stunts and sells the footage online. After one such act catches the eye of the NSA, Cage is recruited by agent Gibbons (Samuel L. Jackson) to infiltrate a terrorist group in Prague called Anarchy 99, led by the over-the-top Yorgi (Martin Csokas). Cage must rely on the help of Yolena (Asia Argento), a Russian double agent in deep cover, to stop a plot involving biochemical warfare. It’s spy thriller meets X-Games—on paper, at least.

What Works

Vin Diesel’s presence: Diesel has undeniable screen presence and looks the part of a next-gen action star. He’s physically convincing in the role, even if his one-liners fall flat.
Slick visuals: The film is glossy, fast-paced, and looks like it cost every bit of its high-budget production—an MTV aesthetic turned up to 11.
Samuel L. Jackson: He elevates nearly anything he’s in and gives the film a bit of gravitas it sorely needs.

What Doesn’t Work

Poor dialogue: The script is filled with slangy, poser lines that sound awkward coming from actors in their 30s. It feels like a high school teacher trying to talk like their students.
Clichéd and hollow: *xXx* borrows heavily from better films (*Bond*, *Mission: Impossible*) but lacks their finesse or wit. The movie is all catchphrases and explosions, with little to back them up.
Sexism and objectification: Despite its PG-13 rating, the film leans hard into misogyny, using women mostly as set dressing. It's embarrassing, not edgy.
Cheesy effects: The snowboarding sequences, in particular, are painfully fake-looking and unintentionally comical.

Final Thoughts

*xXx* is exactly what happens when a movie is built by a marketing team first and a creative team second. Its attempt to launch a new action franchise is overly eager and undercooked. Rob Cohen’s direction tries to channel Bond’s cool with an “extreme” edge but ends up looking more like a Mountain Dew commercial than a credible spy film. Vin Diesel deserves a better vehicle for his talents. This one’s strictly for action junkies with a high tolerance for cheese.

Rating

⭐ Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Call to Action

Did Vin Diesel deserve a better franchise than *xXx*? Drop your thoughts in the comments below.

For more reviews of early 2000s action flicks, check out our action movie archives.

Movie Review: Abandon (2002) – Katie Holmes Steps into the Shadows in Stephen Gaghan’s Stylish Thriller

(2002) – Katie Holmes Steps into the Shadows in Stephen Gaghan’s Stylish Thriller

Tags Abandon review, Katie Holmes movies, Stephen Gaghan, Benjamin Bratt, college thrillers, psychological mystery, Charlie Hunnam, Zooey Deschanel, 2000s suspense films, Dawson’s Creek stars

Overview

Abandon is a 2002 psychological thriller written and directed by Oscar-winning screenwriter Stephen Gaghan (*Traffic*). Featuring Katie Holmes in a leading role, the film centers on a high-achieving college senior haunted by the sudden disappearance—and possible return—of her ex-boyfriend. Gaghan delivers a sleek, De Palma-inspired mystery that uses Holmes’ TV persona to surprising effect.

Plot Summary

Katie Holmes plays Catherine “Caty” Burke, a top student at an elite university with a promising job in the financial world waiting for her post-graduation. However, Caty is still emotionally haunted by the vanishing of her ex-boyfriend Embry (Charlie Hunnam), a wealthy and enigmatic art student who disappeared two years earlier. When a dogged, recently sober detective named Wade Handler (Benjamin Bratt) reopens the case—under pressure from Embry’s trustees to declare him legally dead—Caty is forced to relive their toxic relationship and confront growing paranoia. Is Embry really gone, or has he returned to torment her?

What Works

Katie Holmes: Holmes gives one of her most compelling performances here, navigating Caty’s breakdown with nuance—even if audiences struggle to separate her from her Dawson’s Creek alter ego.
Charlie Hunnam: As Embry, Hunnam oozes manipulative charm, perfectly capturing the allure of the toxic college artist archetype.
Direction: Gaghan, in his directorial debut, creates a suspenseful atmosphere reminiscent of Brian De Palma’s thrillers—full of twists, voyeuristic tension, and stylistic flourishes.
Gender Flip: Refreshingly, Benjamin Bratt’s detective plays the role typically assigned to female characters—serving more as a narrative function than a fully fleshed-out lead.

What Doesn’t Work

The film leans a bit too heavily on flashbacks, which occasionally slow the pacing and dilute the mystery’s forward momentum.
Holmes and Bratt lack romantic chemistry, which makes some scenes between them feel forced.
Some viewers may find the final twist predictable or underwhelming compared to the film’s stronger first half.

Final Thoughts

Abandon is an underrated, stylish college thriller with a strong central performance by Katie Holmes and an atmospheric touch by Stephen Gaghan. While it doesn’t reach the heights of its influences like *Body Heat* or *Dressed to Kill*, it’s a solid entry into early 2000s psychological suspense and a promising directorial debut. If you can separate Holmes from her TV past, you’ll find this to be a fun, twisty ride.

Rating

⭐ Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Call to Action

Was Katie Holmes convincing in a darker, post-Dawson’s Creek role? Share your take in the comments.

Explore more reviews of psychological thrillers from the early 2000s on our blog.

Movie Review: 8 Mile (2002) – Eminem’s Battle for Respect in a Bleak Detroit

Tags 8 Mile review, Eminem movies, Detroit hip-hop, rap battles in film, Curtis Hanson, Brittany Murphy, Kim Basinger, music biopics, hip-hop dramas, GuessTheGross, underground rap scene

Overview

8 Mile is a gritty 2002 drama directed by Curtis Hanson, starring Eminem in a semi-autobiographical role that explores the struggle to break out of poverty and into the hip-hop spotlight. Set against the stark backdrop of Detroit, the film offers a look at the challenges of race, class, and self-expression through the lens of underground rap battles.

Plot Summary

Jimmy Smith Jr., aka Rabbit (Eminem), is a struggling young rapper living in a trailer park with his alcoholic mother (Kim Basinger) and working a dead-end job at an automotive parts plant. Battling personal demons, broken relationships, and intense economic hardship, Rabbit sets his sights on redemption through Detroit’s underground rap scene. With the help of his best friend Future (Mekhi Phifer), Rabbit prepares to face off in brutal freestyle battles, where his voice and rhymes might finally offer him a way out. Along the way, he becomes entangled with Alex (Brittany Murphy), a woman chasing her own version of escape.

What Works

Performance: Eminem brings raw intensity and authenticity to a role that mirrors his own rise, particularly during the rap battles where his wordplay is electric.
Rap Battles: The film’s freestyle scenes are its high points, pulsing with energy and crafted with the stakes of a great sports movie—verbal combat that hits harder than fists.
Setting: Detroit’s gritty realism adds a stark, immersive texture to the story, emphasizing the odds stacked against Rabbit’s rise.

What Doesn’t Work

The film often feels too conventional—its underdog structure predictable, and its pacing lacking the edge that its subject matter demands.
Curtis Hanson’s direction is oddly restrained, missing opportunities to push visual boundaries and more vividly reflect the chaos and energy of the hip-hop world.
While Eminem is compelling, it’s hard to evaluate his acting fully since he never fully disappears into the character—Rabbit remains indistinguishable from the rapper himself.

Final Thoughts

8 Mile succeeds in delivering powerful moments of tension and catharsis, especially during its rap battles. Eminem’s screen presence is undeniable, and the film captures the spirit of perseverance in the face of cultural and economic adversity. Yet, despite its raw subject and lead actor’s charisma, the film never quite hits the high notes it aims for. It’s good—just not the knockout it could have been.

Rating

⭐ Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Call to Action

Did 8 Mile live up to the hype? Let us know in the comments, or share your favorite rap battle moment from the film.

If you’re into music dramas, check out more reviews of films about musicians and underground scenes.

Movie Review: 50 First Dates (2004) – A Surprisingly Sweet Sandler Romance with a Twist

Tags 50 First Dates review, Adam Sandler movies, Drew Barrymore, romantic comedies, memory loss romance, Hawaii films, 2000s rom-coms, Peter Segal, best rom-coms, comedy movie reviews, GuessTheGross, Valentine’s Day movies

Overview

50 First Dates is a 2004 romantic comedy directed by Peter Segal. It stars Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore in a love story set in Hawaii, where a woman’s rare memory condition forces her suitor to win her heart anew each day.

Plot Summary

Henry Roth (Adam Sandler) is a carefree veterinarian living in Hawaii who enjoys casual flings with tourists—until he meets Lucy Whitmore (Drew Barrymore), a charming local woman with a unique condition. After a car accident, Lucy suffers from short-term memory loss and relives the same day every morning. Despite the challenge, Henry falls for her and commits to making her fall in love with him again and again. Along the way, he navigates her protective family, oddball friends, and his own immaturity in a quest for lasting love.

What Works

Performance: Drew Barrymore brings sweetness and emotional complexity to Lucy, grounding the outlandish premise. Sandler tones down his usual goofiness to deliver a surprisingly likable romantic lead.
Direction: Peter Segal smartly balances romance and comedy, keeping the tone light while letting the emotional beats shine through.
Tension or Themes: The film explores themes of memory, commitment, and daily devotion with a surprisingly sincere touch, especially for a Sandler vehicle.

What Doesn’t Work

The subplots—particularly those involving Sean Astin and Rob Schneider—veer into juvenile territory and feel disconnected from the emotional heart of the story.
Some humor falls flat, relying on stereotypes and bodily gags that clash with the film’s more heartfelt core.

Final Thoughts

50 First Dates is one of Adam Sandler’s most balanced romantic comedies, blending his trademark silliness with genuine sweetness. While not without its flaws, the chemistry between Sandler and Barrymore elevates the film, making it a memorable Valentine’s Day treat or anytime date-night watch.

Rating

⭐ Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Call to Action

What did you think of 50 First Dates? Leave a comment below or share your favorite moment from the film!

If you enjoyed this review, check out my takes on other romantic comedies here.

Movie Review: About Schmidt (2002) – Jack Nicholson’s Quiet Triumph in a Life-Unlived Road Trip

Tags: About Schmidt review, Jack Nicholson, Alexander Payne, 2000s movies, road trip films, dramatic comedies, Kathy Bates, Oscar-nominated performances, character studies, movie reviews

Overview

About Schmidt is a 2002 dramatic comedy directed by Alexander Payne. Starring Jack Nicholson, Hope Davis, and Kathy Bates, the film follows a newly retired insurance actuary who embarks on a cross-country journey that becomes both literal and emotional, as he confronts regret, grief, and meaning in his twilight years.

Plot Summary

Warren Schmidt (Jack Nicholson) is a 66-year-old actuarial expert facing a purposeless retirement and a marriage that feels like it’s drifted into inertia. After the sudden death of his wife, Warren takes to the road in a Winnebago, intending to attend his daughter Jeannie’s wedding and, perhaps, talk her out of marrying a man he finds utterly unworthy. Along the way, he writes revealing and often hilarious letters to a six-year-old African boy he sponsors named Ndugu, unburdening his disappointments and fears. His trip leads him to encounter a cast of colorful characters, including the free-spirited mother of the groom (Kathy Bates), culminating in an emotional reckoning with the life he’s lived—or failed to live.

What Works

Performance: Jack Nicholson delivers one of his most restrained and affecting performances, shedding his iconic charisma to portray a man both pitiful and painfully real. Kathy Bates is a knockout in a fearless supporting role.
Direction: Alexander Payne expertly balances humor and melancholy, with a tone that walks the line between satire and sincerity. His attention to realism grounds the story.
Themes: The film meditates on aging, missed opportunities, and the quiet desperation of ordinary lives. The "Dear Ndugu" letters frame these themes with sharp emotional clarity.

What Doesn’t Work

The deliberate pacing may feel slow to some viewers expecting a more conventionally structured road movie or comedy.
Some of the satirical moments, particularly early in the film, may come off as overly dry or meandering depending on viewer taste.

Final Thoughts

About Schmidt is a poignant, understated triumph that strips away the myth of Jack Nicholson and reminds us of the actor beneath the persona. It’s a quietly powerful film, carried by brilliant writing, subtle direction, and a career-highlight performance. A must-see for fans of character-driven stories and grounded human drama.

Rating

⭐ Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

What did you think of About Schmidt? Leave a comment below or share your favorite scene or quote from the film!

If you enjoyed this review, check out my takes on other character-driven dramas here.

Movie Review: 40 Days and 40 Nights (2002) – A Celibacy Challenge Rom-Com That Falls Short

Tags 40 Days and 40 Nights review, Josh Hartnett, romantic comedy, Shannyn Sossamon, 2000s movies, Michael Lehmann, sex comedies, movie reviews, celibacy in movies, raunchy comedies

Overview

40 Days and 40 Nights is a 2002 romantic comedy directed by Michael Lehmann. It stars Josh Hartnett, Shannyn Sossamon, and Vinessa Shaw, and centers on a young man who takes a vow of celibacy for Lent — only to meet the perfect girl the moment he swears off sex.

Plot Summary

Matt (Josh Hartnett) is a San Francisco web designer heartbroken from a recent breakup. Tired of meaningless hookups, he decides to give up sex — and all forms of intimacy — for 40 days during Lent. Naturally, right as he embarks on this personal detox, he meets Erica (Shannyn Sossamon), a witty and charming woman who might be exactly what he’s been looking for. Complicating matters, Matt's roommate Ryan discovers the vow and turns it into a public spectacle by launching a betting site on whether Matt can last the full 40 days. As temptations escalate and misunderstandings pile up, Matt’s challenge quickly becomes more about emotional honesty than just abstinence.

What Works

Performance: Josh Hartnett is affable and occasionally funny in the lead, and Shannyn Sossamon brings a low-key charm to a thinly written love interest.
Direction: Michael Lehmann (known for Heathers) keeps the film briskly paced and visually polished, even if the story struggles to maintain momentum.
Concept: The inversion of the usual “guy trying to get laid” trope is refreshing in theory, giving the film a unique starting point in the raunch-com genre.

What Doesn’t Work

The plot relies heavily on contrivances and avoids real emotional stakes, opting instead for sitcom-level misunderstandings.
Most supporting characters, especially Matt’s roommate, veer into caricature territory, and the film uses gross-out gags as filler rather than real humor.

Final Thoughts

40 Days and 40 Nights is a watchable but forgettable entry in the early 2000s rom-com scene. While it starts with a clever premise, the execution leans too heavily on clichés and easy laughs. Fans of Josh Hartnett or early-2000s nostalgia may find it mildly entertaining, but for most viewers, it’s a middling experience.

Rating

⭐ Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

What did you think of 40 Days and 40 Nights? Leave a comment below or share your favorite (or most cringeworthy) moment from the film!

If you enjoyed this review, check out my takes on other romantic comedies here.

Movie Review: 13 Going on 30 (2004) – A Charming Body-Swap Rom-Com with Heart

Tags (Labels in Blogger) 13 Going on 30 review, Jennifer Garner, Mark Ruffalo, romantic comedy, 2000s movies, Gary Winick, body-swap movies, movie reviews, feel-good movies, coming-of-age films, fantasy rom-coms

Overview

13 Going on 30 is a 2004 romantic comedy directed by Gary Winick. It stars Jennifer Garner, Mark Ruffalo, and Judy Greer, and follows a 13-year-old girl who magically wakes up as her 30-year-old self and must reckon with the adult life she unknowingly created.

Plot Summary

In 1987, Jenna Rink (Shana Dowdeswell) is a shy teenager who wants nothing more than to fit in with the popular crowd. After a humiliating birthday party prank, she makes a desperate wish to be “thirty, flirty, and thriving.” The next morning, Jenna (now played by Jennifer Garner) wakes up in 2004 — in a swanky New York apartment, working at her dream fashion magazine. But she soon discovers that becoming popular came at a cost: she’s estranged from her best friend Matt (Mark Ruffalo), and the adult version of herself is not someone she likes. As Jenna tries to reconcile her childhood ideals with her grown-up mistakes, she learns that growing up isn’t about skipping the hard parts — it’s about choosing who you want to be.

What Works

Performance: Jennifer Garner is radiant in her breakout comedic role, fully capturing the innocence and energy of a 13-year-old in a grown woman’s body. Mark Ruffalo adds emotional weight and sincerity to the romantic arc.
Direction: Gary Winick blends fantasy and feel-good romance with a light, stylish touch. The tone is upbeat without becoming cloying, and the pacing keeps things engaging throughout.
Themes: The film explores the costs of popularity, the value of true friendship, and the importance of authenticity. It balances nostalgia and emotional sincerity with humor and heart.

What Doesn’t Work

The title can be misleading, evoking the cheesier body-swap films of the '80s like Vice Versa or 18 Again.
Some overly cutesy moments feel dated or a little forced — especially in the third act — though they don’t derail the film’s momentum.

Final Thoughts

13 Going on 30 is a surprisingly heartfelt romantic comedy that stands out for its strong performances and a story that hits both funny and emotional beats. Perfect for fans of Big or Legally Blonde, this is a movie that will leave you smiling long after the credits roll.

Rating

⭐ Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

JSON-LD Schema Paste in HTML View:

What did you think of 13 Going on 30? Leave a comment below or share your favorite moment from the film!

If you enjoyed this review, check out my takes on other romantic comedies here.

Movie Review Ouija (2014) Dimwitted PG-13 Horror Fails to Start Parker Bros Cinematic Universe

Film Critic Sean Patrick really did not enjoy the attempt to create a board game cinematic universe with Ouja.

Overview

Why is no one impressed by the fact that ghosts exist? The stars of the movie Ouija suddenly find themselves in a world where the dead can communicate with the living via a haunted piece of wood and this doesn't fundamentally alter their entire worldview? If I had legitimately witnessed proof of the supernatural my mind would break. I would not be able to function. These nitwits act like this is just another day except a friend of theirs is dead.

Plot Summary

Debbie (Shelley Hennig) dies by suicide after a strange Ouija board incident. Her friends Laine (Olivia Cooke), Trevor (Daren Kagasoff), Sarah (Ana Coto), Isabelle (Bianca Santos), and Debbie's boyfriend Pete (Douglas Smith) use the board to contact her but instead reach a spirit called "DZ." They see the image of a girl with a sewn mouth who warns them of her mother. And, they learn Debbie found and used the board alone. Isabelle is possessed and killed.

Laine and Pete discover the board belonged to the Zander family. They learn Doris Zander, a missing girl whose medium mother sewed her mouth shut, was used to channel spirits. Her sister Paulina (Lin Shaye) tells Laine to find Doris' body in a secret room and unstitch her mouth to banish the mother's spirit. Yawn.

What Works

Lin Shaye - Horror icon Lin Shaye improves any movie that she appears in, even something as insipid as Ouija.
Olivia Cooke - Olivia Cooke has a future as a leading lady, even if Ouija does not speak well of her talent or appeal.

What Doesn't Work

Basic Logic: Why introduce the rules of Ouija and then not make use of them? One of the rules of the Ouija board is never play in a graveyard. Do you know what these characters never do? Play in a fucking graveyard! Now, the only thing I can think of is: what would happen if they played in a graveyard?
Lore: I am so sick of characters who are entirely unimpressed by the things that torment them. I realize we are no longer easily moved by spectacle in this day and age but the characters in Ouija should be a little more surprised by what they see?
The Male Cast-members: Daren Kagasoff and Douglas Smith are basically interchangeable. Neither actor makes an impression. Forgettable would a compliment to these performances.

Final Thoughts

If I saw a ghost I'd probably spend the rest of my life processing this previously unbelievable thing. Sure, I might have a few logical questions about how the ghost possibly exists, not a few of which are inspired by Scooby Doo episodes, but with such curiosities satisfied I would likely move on to HOLY SHIT GHOSTS EXIST!!! GAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Has no one ever noticed that the only people who believe in Ouija boards are those with a little self interest tied into the board working? It's either people lost in grief, desperate to contact lost loved ones, or people who make money off those grieving folks. How has this logic escaped so many people?

How is it that the Ouija board and other such nonsense have survived the technological revolution? Anyone ever wonder about that?

It seems that no matter how much evidence exists to debunk the paranormal or supernatural, the mind still craves the belief. It's undoubtedly an expression of the fear of death. We all want so desperately to believe in the afterlife that we can rationalize just about anything, including the fact that none of us have ever seen a ghost or a demon but so many of us choose to believe they exist.

That's got nothing to with the movie Ouija but it was a more interesting series of thoughts than anything in Ouija.

Rating

⭐ Rating: [0 out of 5 stars]

What did you think of Ouija? Leave a comment below or share your favorite moment from the film!

If you enjoyed this review, check out my takes on other horror movies here.

Men in Black 3 Review: Time-Travel, Alien Hijinks & a Spot-On Josh Brolin Performance

Film critic Sean Patrick reviews Men in Black 3, praising its time-travel twist, Josh Brolin’s uncanny Tommy Lee Jones impression, and the film’s action-packed, alien-filled fun.

Overview

As a regional media film critic, I’ve seen my fair share of sequels, but Men in Black 3 manages to surprise and entertain in ways few third installments can. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones return, but this time around, there’s a twist—Agent K is played mostly by Josh Brolin.

Yes, you read that right. Thanks to a clever time-travel plot, Agent J (Will Smith) must travel back to the 1960s to save his partner, Agent K. In the past, K is portrayed by Josh Brolin—and his impression of a young Tommy Lee Jones is nothing short of astonishing.

Plot Summary

Agent J's (Will Smith) newest case forces him to travel back in time to the start of the Men in Black project. This takes J back to 1969 where he will team up with Agent K (played as a young man by Josh Brolin, doing a perfect Tommy Lee Jones impression), and retrieve a piece of information that is needed to save the world.

What Works

Josh Brolin is Tommy Lee Jones - Brolin’s performance is so pitch-perfect, it’s as if the filmmakers truly traveled back in time to cast a young Tommy Lee Jones. The mimicry is seamless, and what starts as a novelty quickly becomes completely natural. You forget you’re watching Brolin—he is Agent K.
Will is Still Will - Will Smith's comic timing and charisma remains top notch
Tommy Lee Jones - Though his role is more limited this time, still brings weight and gravitas when he’s on screen. He’s as good as ever.

What Doesn't Work

Not enough Tommy Lee Jones

Final Thoughts

The film is fast-paced, funny, and full of heart. It delivers exactly what you’d hope for from the franchise:

Spectacular special effects
Clever humor
Wild alien designs

And, of course, the charismatic Will Smith at the center of it all

In short, Men in Black 3 is phenomenal. Whether you’re in it for the nostalgia, the sci-fi action, or the humor, this movie delivers. It’s perfect for a Memorial Day weekend outing—fun for longtime fans and newcomers alike.

Rating

⭐ Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

What did you think of Men in Black III? Leave a comment below or share your favorite moment from the film!

If you enjoyed this review, check out my takes on other Will Smith here.

Movie Review: Don’t Breathe (2016) – A Claustrophobic Home Invasion Thriller

📽️ Official Trailer

Overview

Don’t Breathe is a 2016 horror-thriller directed by Fede Álvarez. The film stars Jane Levy, Dylan Minnette, and Stephen Lang. Set in the desolate neighborhoods of Detroit, the story follows three young burglars who target the home of a blind Gulf War veteran, believing it to be an easy heist. However, they soon discover that the blind man is far more dangerous than they anticipated.

Plot Summary Rocky (Jane Levy), her boyfriend Money (Daniel Zovatto), and their friend Alex (Dylan Minnette) are small-time burglars in Detroit. Desperate for a better life, they plan a final heist: robbing a blind man’s house rumored to contain a substantial cash settlement. The blind man (Stephen Lang), a reclusive Gulf War veteran, lives alone in a dilapidated neighborhood. What seems like an easy job turns into a nightmare as the trio finds themselves trapped and hunted in a house full of secrets.

What Works Stephen Lang’s Performance: Lang delivers a chilling portrayal of the blind man, exuding menace without uttering many words. Tension and Atmosphere: The film masterfully builds suspense, utilizing silence and darkness to create a claustrophobic experience. Direction: Fede Álvarez’s direction keeps the audience on edge, with tight pacing and inventive camera work.

What Doesn’t Work Character Development: The backstories of the protagonists are somewhat underdeveloped, making it harder to empathize with their plight. Third Act Twists: Some plot developments in the final act may feel over-the-top or implausible to certain viewers.

Final Thoughts Don’t Breathe stands out as a tense and innovative entry in the home invasion subgenre. While it has its flaws, the film’s ability to keep viewers on the edge of their seats is commendable. Horror enthusiasts looking for a suspenseful ride will find much to appreciate here.

⭐ Rating 4 out of 5 stars

🗣️ Join the Conversation What are your thoughts on Don’t Breathe? Did the film’s twists surprise you? Share your opinions in the comments below! 🔗 Explore More If you enjoyed this review, check out my review of Don't Breathe 2 linked here.🔗

Snow White and the Huntsman Review: Grim Fairy Tale, Gorgeous Visuals, Disappointing Execution

📽️ Official Trailer

Overview Film critic Sean Patrick reviews Snow White and the Huntsman, praising its visuals and Chris Hemsworth’s performance, but finding Kristen Stewart’s lead and the overall film underwhelming.

Plot Summary This version of Snow White dives deep into a grimmer tone, clearly aiming for epic fantasy territory. Kristen Stewart (Twilight) stars as Snow White, the daughter of a murdered king, imprisoned and later hunted by the queen’s enforcer: Eric the Huntsman, played by Chris Hemsworth—yes, that Chris Hemsworth, better known as Thor.

What Works Chris Hemsworth as The Huntsman: Chris Hemsworth brings gravitas and energy to the role. He even serves as a sort of narrator, helping guide the audience through the sometimes convoluted story. His performance is a standout. High Camp and Glamour: Charlize Theron is deliciously over-the-top as the Evil Queen. She brings flair and menace to every scene she’s in. The Production: The production design is stunning—this film looks amazing, with sweeping landscapes, haunting forests, and lavish costumes.

What Doesn’t Work Kristen Stewart: Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for Kristen Stewart. While I generally like her work, she falls flat here. Her portrayal of Snow White lacks the depth and presence needed for such an iconic character, and her performance drags the film down. Style Over Substance: Snow White and the Huntsman is a classic case of style over substance. Beneath its beautiful exterior, it’s hollow. Great visuals can’t save a weak lead performance or a story that struggles to find emotional resonance.

Final Thoughts In the end, Snow White and the Huntsman is a big-budget disappointment. Despite its impressive visuals and a solid supporting performance from Hemsworth, I can’t recommend it. Skip this one and save your movie dollars for something more engaging.

⭐ Rating 2 out of 5 stars

🗣️ Join the Conversation What are your thoughts on Snow White and the Huntsman? Did you like Kristen Stewart’s performance? Share your opinions in the comments below!

🔗 Explore More If you enjoyed this review, check out my take on the 2025 Snow White Remake from Hollywood and the Indie horror version.

Tags:

#SnowWhiteAndTheHuntsman #MovieReview #KristenStewart #ChrisHemsworth #CharlizeTheron #FairyTaleMovies #GrimmFairyTales #FantasyFilms #FilmCritic #BoxOfficeReview