ImNotSiskel

There’s a difference between a movie about self-discovery and a movie about self-indulgence. This film doesn’t seem to know the difference. What’s worse, it doesn’t particularly care. The premise suggests an adult story about a woman reevaluating her life. In reality, it’s a movie that treats infidelity as a personality trait worth celebrating. Mandy isn’t lost, she’s irresponsible. And the film bends itself into knots pretending her behavior is something admirable. Tom, the boyfriend she lives with, is the only character with any meaningful integrity. He supports her, encourages her, and commits to a future with her. The movie treats him like a narrative obstacle, someone the audience is expected to dismiss simply because he’s steady and kind. Then comes Jack, the veterinarian with the long hair and the curated beard, who functions less like a character and more like a piece of bait. The women in town fawn over him, and the film expects the audience to follow suit. But strip away the soft lighting and the smirking charm, and you’re left with a man who’s perfectly comfortable entering into an affair with someone who shares a home, and a life, with another partner. Here’s the problem, and it’s a fundamental one: The film doesn’t just refuse to hold Mandy accountable, it rewards her for her dishonesty. It positions her affair as a brave leap toward “what she really wants.” That’s not growth. That’s rationalization. If Mandy wanted a different relationship, she could have ended the one she had. But the filmmakers seem to believe the drama is more interesting if she betrays Tom behind his back. What they actually achieve is a complete erosion of the movie’s credibility. Gene Siskel often said he disliked films that tried to manipulate the audience into rooting for behavior the film itself never justified. This movie is a perfect example of that. It asks us to cheer for a protagonist whose defining choice is the one she refuses to take responsibility for. By the end, nothing has been learned, nothing has been examined, and nothing has been earned. It’s an empty film that confuses impulse with liberation and calls the result romance. Final Verdict: A shallow, ethically tone-deaf film that mistakes betrayal for bravery and passion for character development. It doesn’t challenge the audience, it condescends to them. This is an easy thumbs down for anyone will any sense of morality.

How to Train Your Dragon is a feel-good film that brings the whole family together — though maybe not in the way you’d expect. It’s an inspiring tale of perseverance, awkward self-discovery, and the relentless pursuit of lasting more than ninety seconds. We follow Saiko, a young Japanese salaryman burdened by a humiliating past of early celebration. Through sheer determination, breathing exercises, and several uncomfortable therapy sessions, he embarks on a journey of self-mastery. The title, of course, refers to the timeless struggle of learning to keep one’s inner dragon from roaring too soon. It’s touching, relatable, and at times deeply educational. By the end, you’ll be whispering to yourself, “Please… no… not yet… give me one more minute… I haven’t even removed my trousers.” A triumph of spirit and restraint — five stars, but only if you can hold on that long.

"Redefined leadership on the world stage?" More like showed the world EXACTLY how not to lead.

No big screen? Straight to Amazon? No wonder. A has-been and a never-war make a movie... and no one watched it.

True story? Muslim man marries Westerner woman. Man steals their only child. Child ends up in trade. Not surprising.

This seems more like a documentary of ALL of Latin America. This explains why Latino men all shakes their hips when they walk.