mshackletonchavez Reviews

Tyrannosaur (2011)

Awe Inspiringly Heartbreaking

[8/10 · 15 January 2019]

Fantastic and heartbreaking, this film delivers extremely strong and pronounced emotions from two stellar performances.

Written and directed by Paddy Considine, he has displayed an incredible aptitude for filmmaking. I dare not give anything away, even minor characters. This film was astounding, especially for a feature-length debut. It is among the strongest directorial debuts I have ever seen, supported further by its masterful acting. This films screenplay was wonderful, filled with riveting emotions, swinging between them like a pendulum, while maintaining tone very well. This film is a drama and a heavy one at that, but it has much needed lighter moments. The balance of extremely strong emotional and dramatic scenes amongst the rest of the film was also very well achieved. Nothing feels like a wasted moment, it feels slim but it feels like a long journey, despite the 92 minute runtime. This film felt longer, but only in the best ways. It displays how incredible its story is, one doesn't notice the length, its all so perfectly balanced. And scenes of emotional weight thus have greater impact, they are all so incredible, some shock, awe, scare and others a tragic, particularly towards the very start of the film and the final act. This directing from Considine is truly incredible, and shows what a real artist can make without the baggage of over budgeting nor any other silliness, it is pure raw talent, as films of this caliber should be.

Peter Mullan was Joseph was a sight to behold. From hatred to love, is just what the audience feels. This performance has so many facets and subtle layers, I believe I must watch the film again to pick up on that even more, which is rare for me. There is such a buffet of performing from him, it is very good, albeit at times a quiet performance, relying on facial expression and non-movement even, but one can see the emotion, the confusion in his character so clearly.

But, I must say, the best performance in this film was from Olivia Colman as Hannah. Colman's performance was flawless and heartbreaking, unforgettable, it brings tears to my eyes just thinking of her character. It was incredible, one feels the need to be silent and go for a walk after what one has seen from this performance and the character. The character has incredible emotional weight, not for the faint of heart. It was such a complex character, with so many motives and reasons, emotions and an incredible unforgettable arc, one of the most dramatic Ive ever seen play out over less than 90 minutes, but it is so perfect in almost every way. I could write and talk about the mastery and passion of this performance for hours, I think it to be the best of Colman's career so far, maybe on par with her as Queen Anne in 'The Favourite', it is just so incredible. The fact it wasn't BAFTA nominated and didn't win hundreds of awards is beyond me. One just has to see, words do it little justice.

The cinematography of this film was very stark, in the best of ways. Setting out scenes to play out in very natural ways, but never sensationalising them. All the colours are very natural well, as if it was shot without stage lights, which I appreciate greatly, and think shows great strength in directing and cinematography as well as subliminal meanings. This film is anything but dynamic in its angles, it is very cold, very real, very emotional.

Overall this film was an awe inspiring journey, with some incredible screenwriting and characterisation and arcs, further aided by the masterful direction of Paddy Considine and spearheaded on screen by Mullan and Colman's incredible performances. Some aspects of this film are unforgettable, heartbreaking and heavy, it balances itself so supremely without ever faltering, that it deserves a 9/10 for its mastery, and breathtakingly amazing performances.

Disobedience (2017)

A Great British Indie

[8/10 · 15 January 2019]

Quite beautiful in so many ways, from its quiet approach, tonal mastery and class performances, this film was a great delight to behold.

"No matter how long it takes. I will always love you", this line has a great a many lines on love, between sparse sweeps of dialogue free sequences, and chanting in Hebrew. This film was highly intriguing, delivered mostly by the performances which were fed by good direction and a great screenplay.

Rachel Weisz as Ronit Krushka was a wondrous performances, many have called it 'nuanced' and I agree, it is extremely well crafted, and performed. Giving the character greater depth, personality, motives, fears and emotion. Often in films with LGBT characters, they are left underdeveloped, however here it is quite the opposite. Playing what is a very unique performance that is highly memorable. A standing ovation for Rachel Weisz is due for this performance.

Rachel McAdams as Esti Kuperman was a very strong performance, though I thought for her's to be inferior to Weisz's, it was still great in its own right. Her character is certainly more quiet, and more restrained, but McAdams plays this restraint and repression highly successfully, without being repetitive of other lesbian characters nor clichéd.

Alessandro Nivola as Dovid Kuperman deserves much praise, although his character was somewhat in the peripheries and a third wheel for most of the film, by the latter parts of the second act and most of the third, his character was portrayed extremely compellingly. And by the end, his demeanour, arc and most importantly Nivola's performance is hard to forget.

The screenplay and direction (By Sebastián Lelio) in tandem worked very well together, there was a certain sense of melancholia that was present throughout the whole feature, delivered by most likely the directors influence, it all felt very real. No part of this film felt unrealistic, and thus was highly engaging in that regard. However on the downside, at times it was a little slow, the events of this film would have run at ten to maybe twenty minutes faster, while still covering all the story with the same dramatic effect. It felt like too much bread and too little butter, although I felt this, I understand why it runs for almost two hours, and it still works at that runtime. I just felt it could have been perhaps more impactful at a slightly shortened runtime. However, some scenes do play out very slowly, and this works to a magnificent effect, in particular the opening 15 minutes, and when they visit the former fathers house as well as the final scenes in the synagogue. However other scenes did feel overly long and didn't carry the impact they were aiming for, thus if they were shortened I believe it would have benefited the feature as a whole, which is a fault of the editing. However, another effect of this is that the film ends up being extremely tonally consistent, every scene played out naturally, nothing felt out of place, which is a great achievement especially when one factors in the delicate subject matters the film deals with. Had the film of not had that restraint and consistence, it would not of had the same emotion nor dramatic effect, and maturity which it carried really very well. And thus that is a great strength of the editing, which is very strange to see it so strong is certain aspects yet more weak in others.

The director of this film, Sebastián Lelio, clearly knew how ro construct his characters. As I stated before, nothing feels out of place. This film feels deeply human, and has huge punches of emotion and are long built up to by great craftsman ship, primarily the way he shaped the performances and his use of cinematography.

Cinematographically this film was very interesting for a multitude of reasons. On the one hand, its angulation and framing was always on point, and delivered subliminal meaning to great effect, changing how it was held, where it was placed all to reflect and add to a scenes particular emotion, it did this to a more successful degree than most films, particularly most contemporary films.

On the other hand I must hold my horses, for I could not tell wether the use of colour and lighting in this film was either the work of a master, or extremely boring and dull. Almost all of the film has a very flat, quite detached, mostly standard grey and deep blue colour palette. Which to me seems dull, but perhaps this is due to my jaded sense of colour as this is how most contemporary (Primarily big budget) films look, very dull use of colour. However I also think that this colour decision was deliberate, to reflect on the characters detachment from her community, family and religion, and to further heighten the atmosphere of melancholia and a past that many characters would prefer to forget. While I do think the way this film looks is more due to the latter, I struggled to separate this from how dull and boring so many films colour has become. And this film takes it up to eleven, it was difficult to tell if it was a very deep stylistic choice or a product of current trends. My sense was further offset when in the synagogue scenes the colour suddenly became more vibrant, more contrasted. This could be to mirror and add to emotions, or perhaps not. But overall I think for the film use of colour to be extremely clever, albeit it accidentally mirrors many of the boring current trends set by contemporary blockbusters.

Overall this film was very much worth watching, it is a highly thought provoking piece, spearheaded by the top class performances. Although it lets itself down in certain aspects, in others it is extremely strong. Thus this film is worthy of its praise. It is a beautiful film, with a great love story which brings great thought and care into it delicate subject matters. In my opinion its a 8/10.

The Favourite (2018)

Yorgos Lanthimos' Masterpiece.

[10/10 · 3 January 2019]

Rarely does a film feature in my mind quite as this one did, raring for weeks for its arrival. Yet in the futures stead, this may stand a the one to define this decade. A hail to the Lesbians, a cry for mastery, a perfection in comedy, a masterclass in drama and what brings a director from auteur to master.

This film shall not be easily forgotten. I say this not lightly, but this possibly the best directed motion picture that I have ever seen. This is Yorgos Lanthimos' masterpiece, on par with the classics of bygone eras and delivering a new wave into the future of filmmaking. I believe for this film's influence to lay beyond one awards season, and be heard in the years to come, as two hours in which this enfolds is the greatest that film can be. It challenges normality, has strengths where others do not, and makes perfection of what it can.

The narrative, from full picture perspective was perfect. Perfectly paced, and I have never seen a film balance it's tones so incredibly. How they say: 'You'll laugh and cry' - well I did, and by god did I love it. Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara's screenplay is the years best, without a shadow of a doubt I can say this. Its characterisation os a momentous achievement that will be subject a great many analysis in video and book. Their perfect act structure is one of great pleasure and uniqueness, for I suspect that this film play over not 3, but 4 acts. If one were to watch this feature, and pay attention to its screenplay's structure, I think others would suspect it to be this way. This is a peculiar number of acts, but it plays to this films strength, making it more engaging, though some may say the end drags on a bit, I found it to be to my personal liking.

The direction of this film by the great Yorgos Lanthimos was his best, the years best, and among the best ever put to film. The best I have seen. His mastery over performances (Which I will get to later), over cinematography, over sound, over the physical look of the sets and costumes, it has his mark all over it. And by the day, does it come to fruition in an ablaze of glory. This film is distinct, yet its flavour its certainly more palatable than his other features, Lanthimos' strong flavour is unwavered in my opinion. While it is more accessible than his other films, it is simply more subliminal, that his fans would understand and normal visitors will not.

The performances were simply astonishing. Olivia Colman as Queen Anne was the best performance I have seen from any actor or actress for the entire of the 2018 film season. Her performance is enough to see this film on its own, her character was tragic, hilarious, deeply troubled, and yet a frightening reflection of what could happen to anyone. 'Stalked by tragedy' is one way she is described, and while I will not quote historical facts which are spoilers, her character was far more compelling than I had expected her to be, thanks mostly to Colman's performance. Her acting prowess is surely on course for great honours in the weeks to come.

Rachel Weisz was Sarah Churchill the Duchess of Marlborough, (Who is actually related to Winston Churchill), was incredible. Her characters command over scenes, even ones where she is in loss, cruelty or evil, is a control over the screen that is formidable and unforgettable. In particular the shooting scenes, the hot chocolate scene and her and Annes final scene (Not a spoiler), they were portrays of perfect chemistry, perfect acting, on levels that were scarcely see a few times a decade. Could there be anything more grand, more gorgeous than this performance, a perfect portrayal of all the worse sides of aristocracy, and of a manipulative friendship, one that is a vie for power, for control, to be the favourite.

Emma Stone as Abigail Hill was I think, her best performance to date. Though it was only this films third best (in my opinion), it was etherial, stark, incredibly well layered and portrayed. The fact that it is only this films third best, as is still of such a level, goes to show the caliber of this feature. I found for her portrayal of arrogance to be the part to discern the most from the others, but truly this is an amazing performance.

The rest of the cast was also stellar. Nicolas Hoult in particular was a welcome addition, as well as the rabbits. The rabbits represented so much more than cuteness and cuddliness, they were love, fear, hate, depression, gout, and a cruel past all rolled up into little bundles of fun. This film wouldn't be the same without the rabbits.

The Cinematography was astounding to say the least. I had heard that cinematography Robbie Ryan had stated that Yorgos Lanthimos was basically the director of photography. And this does show, its his mark which is most present, in its sweeping left to right turns, and specific colour palette (Mostly browns and greys in this feature) it is pure Lanthimos, as most of his films follow a two colour palette in most of their composition. The use of natural light was also well chosen, highlighting light and dark, the duality of people, very excellent things most normal viewers do not notice on first viewing. The shot design was unique, more so than other Lanthimos films. The use of Panavision super-wide shots was great, really fun. And his signature angulation of not showing faces is toned down in this film, but is modified in certain ways and is just as strong and unique as his other films.

The set design was remarkable, mostly shot at and Hatfield House, it feels more immersive than any other film set in this period. Everything felt real, despite the small budget. The costumes, just give them an oscar. They were easily the years best, and I would say on the level of the best this side of 2000. On the level of The Lord Of The Rings, they never faltered, and were highly suited, pure eye candy. The makeup and hairstyling were also of the highest quality, also the years best. They were messy, fun, outrageous, immersive, all the marks they aimed for were hit. a perfect shot, not a beat missed. These factors all weighed in, especially the wigs and 'Badger' looking makeup are what historically sold the time period, as well as supplementing the narrative, setting the greatest backdrop for Lanthimos' direction.

The Sound was also a notable factor. Rather more immersive than I had imagined, ever book thrown, tea cup set, and step taken is accounted for. Adding to eeriness, love, endearingness and fear of every scene. Also it subliminally sets one into he film more comfortable, making one notice their own surroundings less, it was highly clever and well executed.

On the weaker side, there was a momentarily feeling I had during the first act that it wasn't all clicking together as well as I had though, however by 20 minute this feeling had passed. Especially since this film has perhaps the strongest second act in the film this side of 2000. Many contemporary films weaken and lose pace in the second acts, but this actually maintains it's trajectory more strongly than anything made during my own life time (That I have seen).

Finally, in the end: This was, I can say with confidence,the best film of the year. Everything, as a final product, fitted together so supremely. This is one for the history books and sets Yorgos Lanthimos' name into stone. For its portrayal of love is so intimate, and truthful, yet subliminal and as all lanthimos features do, sets more questions than it answers. It is now down to the viewers to decide what they thought of its questions, and in that, it is true cinematic perfection. Also classic Lanthimos weird dancing is present, which is always a treat. 5/5

Kinetta (2005)

Great For Yorgos Lanthimos Fans

[6/10 · 31 December 2018]

Ending the year on this is a silent high note. I was pleasantly entertained by Lanthimos' first outing as a solo director.

Lanthimos' has changed so greatly through his career, yet here in this 94 minute feature, his DNA, his mark, his stamp is prevent all throughout. I must profess that I watched this film with only Italian subtitles (On Youtube), while I can somewhat read that language, I luckily didn't find any problems as this film is surprisingly sparse in the dialogue department. There is perhaps less than ten minutes of dialogue, all in Greek of course, and I got the gist of it from my dodgy Italian reading. Yet, this film is intensely visual, Lanthimos' trademark (By this point), is a language of its own.

The film is set in a small Hellenic resort, with three nameless characters. The chambermaid, he BMW lover and the photography man. A great deal of these performances is non-verbal, and based solely on bodily expression with a few from the face. Much of the framing os focused on bodies, the lens is in a funny aspect ratio and it (I believe) is in 35mm film. This sounds awfully like perhaps the foundations of the "Greek Weird/New Wave" of film style.

The performances were all of a good quality, particularly so as there was so little dialogue, this was well performed in that regard. In particular I found for Evangelia Randou to stand out as perhaps the best.

The Cinematography is primarily handheld, and the beginning's of Lanthimos' distinctive style just begin to creep out in some spots during this film, particularly during the first act and towards the very end of the film. But i must criticise that a lot of hand held work was extremely shaky, in some places it was almost too shaky, and how this then contrasts to the very level and more classical Lanthimos' style is rather jarring in places, and a fault in the editing, quite a deep one at that measure.

At times this film went twenty minutes without uttering a word, while this made for a quiet and strangely engaging experience. At times it felt a little sparse, as some of the contemporary reviews of the time called it 'nihilistic' - that it stands and believes in nothing. And I must disagree, seeing this film from the arse end of 2018 perspective, I believe that it actually a message about the monotony of life. How the world just turns and turns, eventually leading the main character to do what she finally tries at the end. After everything that happens, that is the snap. This films message, I think to be, is about life, it is about how we spend our time. And I think the critics from when this film was released got it wrong, this film is not nihilistic.

The direction of this film, like in the Cinematography is small inklings of Lanthimos' later work. This feels like Proto-Lanthimos, it was highly intriguing to see, the things which stuck, the things that changed, and the aspects of his style that are still the same to this day. The change from this to his mastery in 'Dogtooth' just four years later, shows his incredible growth and maturity and a director, a change so dramatic that it is rarely seen from many directors.

Overall this was a little fun experience, but this films jarringness, and lack of dialogue made it for a tonally quite inconsistent film. While some aspects are forgettable, others are so distinctly Lanthimos that it is quite fun to behold. But this still feels like a style in growth, thus the final product is stunted, and somewhat weak. This film is worth seeing of you are a fan of Yorgos Lanthimos, or are interested in the forming of the new Greek wave. I give it a 3/5.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)

Incredible, Yet Missing Something.

[7/10 · 27 December 2018]

Cinematographically perfect, beautifully acted, outstanding screenplay, masterfully directed, and wonderfully haunting, yet was missing something.

This feature has left me perplexed. On the one hand certain aspects just couldn't be better, such as the aforementioned, contrarily I'm not sure if its my own personal disenfranchisement from the Horror genre, or if there is a hole, a great gaping hole missing from this film. This film is cold, stark, interesting, but lack character. It lacks a unique voice, which writes strange as this is a highly unique feature, it feels almost soulless. As if it knows not its own fate, and becomes more style over substance.

While I am a great admirer of Lanthimos' style, I felt that it began to overcast this feature. The narrative is a compelling tragedy, about a doctor who's past mistakes destroy his present, based on the 2400 year old Ancient Hellenic (Greek) Tragedy named 'Iphigenia At Aulis' by Euripides. His distinctive directorial style is allover this film, from its angulation, to dialogue delivery. It is clearly his work, with as aspect of Kubrick-esque flair thrown in that is present in many of his films, though only a little. The direction of this film is truly masterful, almost without fault, the narrative is a little slow (although this is common to Lanthomos' features, it feels longer in this instance, something feel unbalanced). The film is sound, but yet feels a little wonky, dare I say undercooked. Like a Jenga tower, it could collapse if but a single brick is taken out. It only just fulfils the criteria, it is difficult to describe.

The performances are among this films great strengths, Colin Farrell is wonderful, although I believe for his performance here to be a little weaker than his previous outing with Lanthimos in 'The Lobster', it is still sound, and as layered. A complex character, extremely well crafted and realised, almost like as if I couldn't imagine any other actor fitting the part quite so well. He sports a great beard in this motion picture, it covers much of his facial expression, which makes him seem more of a spectre, more difficult to read and to understand his viewpoint, which adds to the moral complexity of the feature rather well. In effect the beard was a clever addition, quite out of the norm of Lanthimos' performances, but a clever piece.

Barry Keoghan as Martin is a character that is hard to forget, but for all the more lurid and deceitful reasons of his ways. For this character seems innocent at first, but is truly the paramount expression of evil behind a flower. His character is one of the most well portrayed, well characterised villains I have ever seen put to a film. For his actions are complex, manipulative and extremely well constructed by the screenplay. He is portrayed to every beat so well by Keoghan, truly it will be a performance to be remembered.

The rest of the cast is rather good too. Nicole Kidman as Anna Murphy, Raffey Cassidy as Kim, Sunny Suljic as Bob and Alicia Silverstone as Martin's mother are all well portrayed. Neither of the younger performers are bad, in fact they are quite compelling and add to the films tone. Nicole Kidman is great, although I felt that her character while present for much of the film, was somewhat lacking in development.

The cinematography of this feature was, as many of Lanthimos' films are, absolutely stunning. Id say this was his best looking film, visually, that he has made thus far (Excluding The Favourite). The way the camera is cold, it feels like viewing capsule, it is cold, antiseptic, like a hospital, and as I have already mentioned, a Kubrick Like style to the way it behaves. The colours used are all a thousand shades of blue and grey, it is a very limited palette, that gives an incredible depth, each shot is a spectacle. This adaptability which Lanthimos displays, across this different genre, shows just how incredible of a director he is, that it feels like he a master of everything he touches, simply by his command over visual information.

The set design was also very well crafted, with very open yet cold feeling locations. I read that this was filmed in a real hospital, and clearly they picked the right one. All the right beats are hit. The costume design is fair, but this is expected of a film in the Horror genre.

But as I have already stated: the film feels as if it is missing something. It feels like a brilliant showcase of cinematography, performances and screenplay, but it feels almost too cold, and too distant. It didn't have the same engrossing power which Lanthimos' earlier work possesses. The style began to take over, not in entire sections but from scene to scene. Some felt more tonally distant than others, some blended style and plot extrmely well, such as the spaghetti scene, or the corrior scene between Farrell and Suljic's characters. While others such as the final scene, the walking scene, the medical examinations, began to meander a great deal.

In the end, I was somewhat disappointed with this feature, but it is by no means a bad film. It has some truly outstanding aspects, however its over-reliance on style and form, and perhaps too much distantness from the audience do detract it, and make it feel longer than its actual run time, or at least that;s how I felt. I would recommend this film to any Lanthimos fan or Horror fan, as it is a brilliant showcase of what can be done in those respective corners. I give it a 7/10

Attenberg (2010)

Intertwined In Mastery And Exploration.

[9/10 · 25 December 2018]

What a film, I adored this feature. For its bravery, uniqueness and willingness to be something different, in almost every aspect.

Directed by Athina Rachel Tsangari, this feature was a true experience. An arthouse film from Greece, in Greek and parts in French plus a dash of English, it had such a character, and tone which shone through the screen with such confidence and clarity. The direction is masterful, guiding the four main performances to every beat, it doesn't feel overlong or cringed, it is sublime, and pure.

The main performance by Ariane Labed was perfect, she delivered her characters fear, inexperience, crudeness, wackiness, and curiosity with such a command, that is quiet yet enthralling. This being her first film performance, and a tough one to wrestle with, it is classful and incredible that it was delivered so well, despite the characters absurdity.

Evangelia Randou as Bella was great, she played the promiscuous character well. In particular I found for the random cuts to where Marina and Bella would walk down the pathway in the strangest ways, dancing or pouncing about, they were hilarious and truly something which lightened the somewhat heavy theme of the picture. Vangelis Mourikis as Spyros was surprisingly funny, I had though that his character would be boring, but in the end, I sympathised with him greatly and his final fate is sad, yet it is what would always of happened. Yorgos Lanthimos also appears in this film, his character is a vehicle for Marina to explore the new world which she enters, and he plays the part very well, without an ounce of amateurism as an actor, while many of his scenes are highly sexual, the narrative focuses deeply on the characters, and how much they speak during their interactions, which is funny since these are the only scenes with great deal of dialogue, which was deeply ironic and funny.

The screenplay and narrative of this film are on paper rather thin, however when played on screen; they become so full of life and so rich. The characters may seem catatonic on the facade, but if one pays attention, they become so layered. Though little is spoken throughout this feature, very much is said through body language, though sound, these are highly visual performances. And that is how the character development is delivered, and is driven by bad circumstances and poor decisions, that deliver such strong characterisation. The screenplay can'y have been very long, yet it delivers so much.

The narrative is further aided by the masterful cinematography. It is in a 1.85:1 which immediately is different and gives a larger, more juvenile looking frame, on my screen it was very engaging. In addition to this, the camera acts as as if it were a person, but always either slowly moving or sat down, it feels very natural. No shot if forced, nor extreme, it is a visceral experience. It is beautifully filmed. It was done on 35mm film, this gives it something of a timeless look, for it has nether the sharpness of 64mm film, nor the grainy and retro look of 16mm film. It is my personal favourite type of film, and seeing it used to its greatest effect, in mostly natural lighting, with natural angles, it was a sight to behold. A welcome gift for weary eyes.

On the negative side, in sone small segment towards the end of the second act, the film loses a little steam, and slows down a tad but then picks up again very quickly. Also I felt that Yorgos Lanthimos' character could have been explored a little more than what was given.

The uniqueness of this film cannot be understated. From the sheer quirkiness of certain scenes, which can go so far as pure madness, it was absolutely intoxicating and engaging. This is not a phrase I like to use, but I couldn't take my eyes off the screen, I was staring at it the whole way through, even the more disturbing and intimate scenes, this film as such character and breath of uniqueness that is just not present in so many other films. The way the natural colours look, the film, the framing, the performances and the remarkable screenplay and strong direction, overall give an interesting and ultimately fun experience, I was very glad to have seen this obscure and mostly forgotten about film, I give it a very healthy 9/10

Forgotten Silver (1995 TV Movie)

An Experience.

[8/10 · 21 December 2018]

Quirky and unique, this hour long documentary feature fools audiences into an enticing story of a man who history has forgotten, with surprisingly dry humours tones.

This film was a bout of fun and awe, a man of great deeds, a man who invented modern cinema in all its might. This story is inspirational, entertaining and surprisingly heartbreaking and heartfelt at its end, constant disasters to the point where it became hilarious. For I knew that this film was not true, thus a strongly ironic and hilarious side shone through, and is extremely clever screenwriting.

Written, directed and starring Peter Jackson and Costa Botes, their partnership is wonderful in this film. They had a clear comedic vision, and it was realised so well, with very few in-deliberate indications that the story is not true. The whole time they are straight faced, serious and unironic. However unbeknownst to the creators of this mockumentary was the addition of Harvey Weinstein in 2018 viewing would be both a shock, disgusting and darkly hilarious. Though only funny in the sense that I wasn't expecting him to turn up. It also shows how oblivious so many people were to his actions that he unironically appears in this film, for quote some runtime as a perfectly honest citizen, yet he is one of the most unsavoury and disgusting people in the industry. A film historian also appears, as well as Sam Neill, I'd give my hats off to their acting and ability to act perfectly serious about the fictional Colin McKenzie.

Stan The Man was really a great comedic addition, he had funny little skits and how he juxtaposed in and out of the Colin McKenzie narrative. His sketches, particularly his indirect effect of the 'history' of film, and is embroilment with the Kiwi Prime Minister, as well as hs failure in Hollywood were all hilarious.

I must commend the spectacular attention to detail within this feature, with great sets, an entire secret cast, amazing costumes and fake forest exploration would convince most viewers if they didn't know the story was complete BS. The fact that people believed and still believe that this story was true, goes to show how well all the aspects payed off in the end. One must see it to understand the extent of the tomfoolery and banter that silently goes on throughout the entire film.

Overall this was a wonderful experience to watch. A great cult classic, although I watched it as most would today: on a computer, knowing exactly what this film stood for and the fun it was playing. I believe this film would be best viewed in groups, with people of whom are oblivious of its true nature, for in that aspect, the one who knows would be such an entertaining experience. This feature, despite only being 53 minutes, feels fully realised and its great fun to watch. I would thoroughly recommend this for anyone looking for a bit of strange fun, or anyone looking into Peter Jackson or obscure New Zealand cult films. 8/10

Mortal Engines (2018)

Not Directed By Peter Jackson.

[6/10 · 21 December 2018]

Mad Max on steroids, I was pleasantly surprised by this feature, I think the critics have been much too harsh on this film. It delivers truly breathtaking visuals, with somewhat solid performances and premise, although its screenplay and narrative are messy.

This film Apart from I being Peter Jacksons biggest fan, I will attempt to be impartial. Also I have read the book, but that was some time ago. I must say, my major complaint was its underuse of Chudleigh Pomeroy, he was great in the novel, and sorely underused here, also the fact that his name is just amazing and became a joke in my class when we studied the novel. But jokes aside, I have a real reason to root for this film, and surprisingly I was actually happy with the final result. For After I had heard the reviews, I went in with little expectations.

Christian Rivers serves as director, however in terms of it's visual splendour, set design, costumes and even style of language, it is very much a work of Peter Jackson. The direction, though this is Rivers' directorial debut, is weak, though as an opening film it is very strong, but it isn't strong enough t sustain this 100 million+ feature. The screenplay, might I say is quite substandard. I was bitterly disappointed with the narrative, yes it is fun and a good watch, but that is only sustained by the visuals and interesting premise. Though the script uses many of Jacksons', Boyens' and Walsh's flairs, mannerisms and quirks, it really is far below their other work, a far cry from even the Hobbit trilogy just earlier this decade. Back again to Rivers' direction, for most of his career he as been working with visuals or as a second unit director, not using actors for full performances, thus I understand why the dialogue and inter-character interactions in this film feel weak and at worst forced, he simply was inexperienced, thus the film feels weak since its very foundation was undernourished.

The performances were just fine. They certainly weren't great. Hugo Weaving certainly stands out as the fierce Thaddeus Valentine. He clearly was having a lot of fun with the role, and makes for a convincing villain, I'd say probably better than most of the drossy and weak villains from MCU features. Hera Hilmar as Hester Shaw was just fine, really just fine. Her performance wasn't anything special, nor was it bad, at times it felt a little forced but as the film played out it certainly became more relaxed, and I would say improved. Robert Sheehan as Tom Natsworthy was underdeveloped due to the screenplay, but was decently performed. Jihae as Anna Fang was fun, definitely a welcome addition. Also the cameo by Mark Hadlow during the second act was a welcome surprise. Stephen Lang as Shrike was a good part of the narrative, definitely a stronger section.

But the visuals in the feature was simply astonishing. The effects were strong, convincing and didn't look fake, Rivers' career work in visual effects clearly shows. For this film has extremely strong technical elements. The set design too was spectacular, on the level of Weta workshops previous work, costume design was fantastic. I have absolutely no complaints about how this film looks, for it eminently good. The cinematography was very clear and fun, colouration complimented the amazing visuals very well, and its pans across landscapes were captivating. While the rest of the angles were fairly normal, it pleased me greatly in other aspects. The sound design was extremely well crafted, subtle and loud, a grand soundscape, very well balanced, and intricately crafted. The technical features of this film are astonishing, truly some of the years best, on a level worthy of immense praise, and it is a great tragedy that this features narrative let it down so badly.

This film was a wondrous success in certain aspects, and fell flat in others. As a fan of Peter Jackson I am happy too see the visual style is present, but the narrative shortfalls and lack of characterisation, character growth or engaging confrontations in a great disappointment, it is downright weak.

On the other hand, the character of Shrike, the undead cyborg creature was highly captivating. Portrayed by Stephen Lang, it was a morally intricate, and philosophically intriguing sub-plot. The interaction between Shrike and Hester Shaw was this films real character, and could have served more deeply, and been used more wisely, in replacement of the supposed romance that comes out of the blue or slew of deeply useless and forgettable secondary characters. This was certainly the films strongest aspect from a narrative and screenplay perspective, a perspective upon which I place great emphasis.

Overall this film was a mixed bag of results, with alright performances but weak direction and screenwriting, despite the tremendous potential of the source material, concept and talent in the production. But in the end it was still fair popcorn entertainment, propped u by incredible production values, and Hugo Weaving's captivating villain, and of course the odd cameo from Chudleigh Pomeroy. I give it a generous 6/10

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)

Rather Standard But Still Entertaining

[7/10 · 21 December 2018]

While fairly standard, this feature breathes anew light into a generic narrative, along with strong performances from the cast.

This movie was nothing remarkable in the narrative or screenplay department, however I understand the whole talk about its more unique cast, being almost entirely of an Asian disposition. However, in almost all other areas, this film was rather more standard, but by no means bad. Quiet the contrary, I believe it to be rather stronger in the romantic-comedy drama, and most definitely a breath of fresh air into one of the most routine and now boring genres.

Constance Wu as Rachel Chu was good, not a great performance but certainly good. It was alright, however the same could not be said of Michelle Yeoh as Eleanor Sung-Young. Her performance, contrary to what many believe, I thought to be the stronger one. Her character is definitely more interesting, and had more potential to explore, and was far more defined. The rest of the cast was good, whats more to say of a romantic-comedy, there was all the usuals of the genre: the corny ones, the funny ones, the gay character, the sister/brother who is complicated and the chubby aunts, its all stuff that we've seen before. I say that with the upmost respect, I understand it may be a little crude but it is simply the tropes of the genre, however it is all a used recipe. It works rather well, but beyond that it is fairly standard.

Where this film most definitely differentiates itself, and finds its voice within this crowded genre: is it's clear effort to be ethnically and culturally different, while still remaining accessible enough for all audiences, in that regard it is a huge success. I suspect this is why most of the characters, and plot, is fairly generic, it feels like it wants to be accessible, bring audiences into a new world, a new physical environment, that is highly admirable and is worthy of all the praise it has received. This is a great step is representation of minorities within western countries, and for asian cinema. While I dare not delve into politics, I must say that this film is a great breath of fresh air, which is extremely welcomed.

The rest of the film is, as I stated before, very generic. The score is forgettable, the costumes were suitably functional and flashy where they needed to be. The costumes were fun the regard that the feature made the effort to look Asian, so there was very interesting designs and patters but still fairly blended into the scene. The set design was very interesting, it incorporated many far eastern designs, and displayed the flashiness and wealth of the characters well. Often times I did notice how good the set design was, quiet above the standard of the romantic-comedy genre.

The cinematography was very colourful, and a lot of fun. Though this is normal within the genre, it was made more memorable here due to the setting, and the vibrancy of certain scenes was highlighted very well. The angles were normal, but thats perfectly fine within this genre.

What I must criticise was the wealth of fairly useless characters, and others who were extremely generic to the genre. As I stated before, many are things we as viewers have already seen many times before. For a film which clearly wants to stand out, and does, it is somewhat strange to me that they didn't incorporate that huge potential to be revolutionary into its characters, and be more than just another romantic-comedy. It had the potential to be so much more.

Overall, this is certainly a unique film in many regards, and a great leap forward for hollywood. Bu it is weighed down by its incredible genericness, and lack of innovation in so many places where it had such great potential to do so. Im almost saying, it didn't go far enough, this film could have been even more special. But aside from that, what is present does work, and it works to a charm. This film is very funny, it does have some well crafted characters, and a convincing narrative, along with really wonderful set design. This is a good movie, but disappoints me that it averted a clear potential to be a great one. But is still worth watching, and I give it a 7/10.

Roma (2018)

Perhaps The Years Best Film.

[10/10 · 21 December 2018]

Was I ready for this masterpiece, I think not. Quite possibly the film of the year, Alfonso Cuarón has crafted a beautiful, heartbreaking and gorgeously vivid film.

This film has multiple strengths, first I must comment that Yalitza Aparicio as Cleo was absolutely stunning. I cannot believe that this is her first acting experience, her performance was visceral, layered, complicated and a class act. Truly an emotional role, and one I will not forget easily. The rest of the cast is also of the upmost quality, everyone has brought their 'A' game to this table. In particular I thought the mother, portrayed by Marina de Tavira was excellent. As well as the rest of the supporting cast, the children who never felt forced nor silly, the grandmother who was cold for most of the film but came rivetingly alive in moments of great tension and emotional weight.

This film's narrative was truly incredible. The final half an hour is possibly the most impactful, masterful and cinematically incredible of any film I have seen this year. The whole third act from when the riots start, to the the end, is truly a masterpiece. It made me cry a great deal, which is exceedingly rare for a film to evoke that much emotion from me. Everything just added up, the depth of characterisation in the first two acts just gave the strongest release, of pain and eventually happiness and love. It was truly the work of a director in his prime, in his most effective. Certain words were inflected to deliver even more depth, (I can speak Spanish) and it just added more character, the names had extra suffixes, and more could be conveyed. This made what was shown, even more emotional, truly incredible use of language, something that couldn't have been achieved if it were in English.

There was moments, even entire sections of this film where it transcended everything. Beyond language, beyond the frame, beyond its colours, beyond race, beyond its depth and emotion, beyond the narrative itself, it became something so pure, so encompassing, so real. It became something else, something words cannot describe. It is the purest and most beautiful form of cinema. This film is why movies exist, it is the benchmark upon all else should be compared.

Alfonso Cuarón has given us a masterpiece, that we should all be thankful to be in the same world as. His direction, is simply beyond anything I have seen this year. It feels incredibly personal, his vision is pure and goes beyond simply a great film, this is pure humanity. he has written, directed, produced, edited and was the cinematographer for this film. In all those departments, he is a master. His work with the camera is like a legend's final cry, yet he is not an aged man, its like a lifetimes work crashing in two hours, its exquisite. The slow pans across all landscapes gives a detached, and yet so intrusive feeling. As if the camera is just watching these people, similar to Manchester By The Sea, but better here. The decision to grade this film into black and white, helps it to engross its audience, it truly is of aid to this film. In addition to delivering a timeless feel, one is not distracted by colour or if it looks real, it just is. Its so pure, it immerses the viewer more deeply.

The editing is masterful, perhaps the years best, the tone is sustained, heightened and is some of the strongest work in this I have possibly ever seen. His screenplay, as I have said before, is just incredible. One just has to see it, my words do it little justice. Cuarón direction is so strong, his mastery of performances helps to carry this film into its astonishing heights. His control, this vision is untainted, unrestrained, an achievement to behold, to wait for, something that only comes in fleeting years. One that will go down in history.

The film feels timeless, the setting is the 1970's, but it does not feel aged, or like its highlighting that. The set design and costume design are worthy of the upmost honours and awards, they set the atmosphere, give depth and love, and give coldness and fear too. They work so well subliminally, it feels real, tangible, like one could touch it. It gives no distraction, nor does it call for attention, it all compliments the rest of the feature perfectly.

Although, I must state that I felt that in one place the film lost a bit of its pace. Many scenes play out very slowly to maximum effect, which I dare not specifically mention as to not spoil them. But some others feel a little too drawn out, particularly in the middle of the second act. And that's it, my only complaint about the filmmaking. Also, while this is no fault of the film, on Netflix the english subtitle's were not always perfect, they sometimes dodged the meaning of certain scenes a little, but luckily I understanding the language had no problem. Just, for people who don't speak Spanish, beware of slight mistranslations, but of course, this is no problem with the film as a film, only the service used.

In the end, my complaint is that not enough people are seeing this motion picture. This is just the near perfect film, noting else this year comes close to its emotion, its masterful characteriation and consistent strength of performances. The sum of its part is a future classic, a film by which this decade may be defined by, in its art, its love, its overwhelming emotion, its perfect cinematography, its masterful score, its beautiful direction, its wondrous performances, and finally its perfect narrative and screenplay.

It has taken me two days to write this review, much debate to wether a 9 or 10 is deserved. For I reserve a 10 for films that truly go beyond, not just in filmmaking but emotion, and how it personally impacts me. I am incredibly restrained in my ratings, and do not give out high numbers with ease, but here... here I feel it just about makes it. This film is near perfect, and it may just by the film of year, and the decade. 10/10

The Lobster (2015)

Lanthimos' Best Film To Date

[8/10 · 21 December 2018]

This is a most unique feature, brimming with wonderful direction, cinematography, screenplay and performances. A showcase of Yorgos Lanthimos' unique method.

There is much to praise, first and foremost comes the screenplay and direction from of which the rest of the glory comes from. Yorgos Lanthimos delivers what can only be described as absurd, but truly never feels 'cringed' or forced. This film has incredible tonal consistency, and its entire band of emotion is delivered to perfection. The dialogue within is very unique, every character feels awkward within their own skin, and highly intriguing dynamics then play out. Yet it doesn't feel bad, it is silly, but works extremely well. Once again Lanthimos delivers the best from his actors, none of the performances fall on the weak side, and with so many talents here and so many differing angles of character and the variety of emotion, it is truly a wonder that they all came out to the quality in which they did. The comedy feels mischievous and yet some may call it distasteful, I believe it compliments and feed the tone of the feature. As a matter of fact, I was so enthralled by the comedic elements that I had started coughing on three separate occasions during the feature, it truly is a funny experience, yet is deadpan but not boring. It doesn't run out of steam, it flows at a steady pace.

The cinematography of this film is stellar, having read into it, it turns out this film was not shot on film (Due to no labs being present in Ireland), and thus they used a very specific combination of lenses to deliver a grained, classical and vibrant look. The colours are very deep, it feels not 'vibrant' in the sense of an explosion of colour, bit vibrant in its depth, it feels real, the colours contrast and match in all the right places. In addition to this, most of the feature was shot under natural light, this compliments the tone of the film in a most unexpected way. It feels more raw, and has greater depth in all the right places. In addition to this, The way in which Yorgos Lanthimos and Thimios Bakatakis have created the angles used in the feature is truly unique, they repeat the same angle when in the same place, indicating the monotony of the characters lives. The angles are highly creative, creating a unique image, when in tandem with the colouration, it truly has a unique picture quality and perspective.

Another great strength of this feature is its performances, first is Colin Farrell as David. For the longest time I didn't like Colin Farrell as an actor, but this has truly changed my opinion of him. His performance as the silently heartbroken, yet pragmatic and funny David is really magnetic. He doesn't hold back in any aspects, yet the performance is not over the top, it is subdued where it has to be and is highly enthralling and entertaining to watch. Seeing him step out of the usual drunk irishman role, and into something highly unique and so successful was a delight.

The rest of the cast is also wonderful. Ben Whishaw as John was great to see, along with John C Riley, they give David some backbone in the first half and help to prop up his character which is rather quiet in the first half. Léa Seydoux as the loner leader was great, she appears in far too few roles, and delivered the slightly deranged and power crazed leader very well. A great antagonist who yet the main character rely on. Ariane Labed as the Maid and Angeliki Papoulia as Heartless Woman were both great, seeing them in another Lanthimos movie was fantastic and here they play upon their characteristic strengths of strange, somewhat evil and some might say cruel ladies within the narrative. They also deliver some of the comedic highlights of the film which one must only see to truly understand. Olivia Colman was as wonderful as ever, the sadistic yet friendly hotel manager is truly what begins the absurdity of the feature was was delivered extremely well by Colman.

Rachel Weisz as the shortsighted woman who falls in love with David was a great presence. She narrates the majority of the feature, though we do not first encounter her in physical from until much later into the film. She was masterfully performed, her and Colin Farrell were well matched, and her witty and obtuse character was really a needed balance to Farrell's character.

On the other hand, I did feel that in some parts the film dragged on a little too far. For instance the comedy sometimes went on a little too long, however I understand Lanthimos' decision to portray it in this way, its meant to be awkward and strange. Yet in some parts I understood this and yet I felt it went on a little too far. In addition to this, most of the film is devoid of music, while I also understand this decision, I felt as of it was somewhat lacking in some areas, although this did not impede upon my enjoyment of the feature.

In the end, this is a truly great film. One of the ultimate, if not perhaps the, blend of comedy, absurdism and dystopia. Yorgos Lanthimos has done it again and is truly writing his name as one of the best filmmakers currently working, due to his masterful way of constructing a film from all aspects, most notably acting, cinematography, direction and screenwriting which are all distinct and unique to his own expression. 8/10

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)

My First Anthology Film.

[7/10 · 21 December 2018]

Certainly among the most unique of features that I have ever seen. This film has a lot of threads, some better than others, but overall a rather engaging experience.

The Coen brothers have brought their class, wit and mastery of the western genre to this film. I genuinely believe they are the best director(s) that can do Westerns in this day and age. The style of this picture is most intriguing, for this is an anthology of much shorter stories. Which I shall go through, one at a time.

The stories are not connected, other than their in the same picture and belong in one book. But have separate casts, styles and plots. But all are set in the same rough period. They are in order: The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, Near Algodones, Meal Ticket, All Gold Canyon, The Gal Who Got Rattled and finally The Mortal Remains. I found for the fifth (The Gal Who Got Rattled) to be the strongest and for Meal Ticket to be the weakest.

Our opening is, 'The Ballad of Buster Scruggs'. This is a lawdy cowboy of mr Buster Scruggs, portrayed with finesse by Tim Blake Nelson. He is a very caricatured fellow of the old west. The cartoon cowboy, nice clothes, all the same colour, good with a gun, a fine speaker. And Tim Blake Nelson has brought his own rendition, helped by the Coen brothers directorial prowess. The ballad itself is fairly fun, simply being a note of characterisation before a surprise demise. The colours are fairly fair, dare I say unpronounced (However this is the Coen brothers first venture into digital photography), but overall a fun opening.

The second is, 'Near Algodones' - This one has received the most outside attention, mot notably for its witty lead character 'Cowboy' portrayed by James Franco. This one is quite the shift from the previous, this one is more quiet although it has character, but is also equally over the top. But is inherent comedy is stronger than the previous instalment, and I may ay more enjoyable, although the lead character is somewhat weaker.

In the third ballad comes: 'Meal Ticket', this one I felt was the weakest of the six. Although Liam Neeson and Harry Melling were well matched, and compliment each others performances well. However I felt that the emotion it was attempting to evoke was not present, for I had little reason to care. I felt for the characterisation to be strong, but the release to be weak. Thus I felt that it was rather weak, although the performances were it's strongpoint, it dragged a little and may I even say became boring. I also felt that the colour of this one was rather boring, all night times, not particularly vibrant other than in the brothel and makeup. although the cinematography was rather inventive and certainly more unique than the other ballads of this anthology. I just personally wasn't sold by it.

The Gold Canyon was certainly the most inventive of the six, as well as a close first for being the most visually beautiful. It may have less than a couple pages of script, bit in its silence brings a tonally magnificent, visually stunning, and quite heartwarming tale. For Tom Waits as the Prospector is quite a subdued performance, he says but a little, but his love for gold and love of solitude is most evident in his mannerisms. The cinematography in this ballad is simply gorgeous, it is consistent, touching and extremely vibrant, truly best that digital recording can do (although I still believe it to be inferior to film). Overall this is perhaps the second best of the ballads, only behind...

The Gal Who Got Rattled is the title of my favourite of the ballads, for I believe it to have the most emotional weight, the most explored and has the greatest characterisation. Although throughout all the ballads, its strength of characterisation is great, I believe for this ballad to have taken the lead. The Coen brothers have delivered a piece of great strength, though this is their first venture into digital photography, here they surpass most others in pure quality, the hues of brown and the vast blue sky dominate this feature. Along with the strengths of digital photography during the night, it plays to the strengths of the medium and not against it. In addition to this, while the set design is fairly standard of a western, one did feel immersed in the atmosphere, despite being five ballads into the feature. This ballad feels the most emotional of the five, I believe for it to have the most fleshed out characters, the most superior set and costume design and the best screenplay. It also has a fully fledged three act narrative, along with it being on the longer side of the ballads, it feels the most developed. As if it could be an entire feature on its own, but does not feel rushed or cramped, it is tonally extremely consistent and strong, balancing the adventure spirit, with fear, comedy and drama to a higher degree than the other ballads. Zoe Kazan as Alice Longabaugh and Bill Heck as William Knapp had a great dynamic, and played off each others presence very well. Their performances, particularly Kazan were among the strongest of the film as a whole. Grainger Hines as Mr. Arthur was a surprise at the end, though I had thought he would pass on without any moments, for what time he had at the end, he was a very strong performance. The ballad felt not cliche nor forced, a real achievement as a whole within the entire western genre. Overall this was my favourite of the ballads, and in particular due to Kazan and Hines' performances and the mastery displayed by the Coen brothers from multiple aspects within it.

The sixth and final of the anthology is: 'The Mortal Remains', this was certainly a peculiar feature, although more on the standard side within this film. It follows a group of five travellers in a stagecoach, portrayed by: Tyne Daly as Mrs. Betjeman, Brendan Gleeson as Clarence, Jonjo O'Neill as Thigpen, Saul Rubinek as René and Chelcie Ross as the trapper. They all have differing opinions, and somewhat gang up on the elderly lady. There is nothing particularly special about this ballad, other than the swashbuckling dialogue and faint stylistic colouration. It was somewhat a disappointing ending to what was a rather enjoyable motion picture as a whole.

I would give each one out of a possible five:

• The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, 3.5
• Near Algodones, 3
• Meal Ticket, 2
• All Gold Canyon, 3.5
• The Gal Who Got Rattled, 4
• The Mortal Remains, 3

This was most certainly a unique and interesting film, it has six very different stories, but overall is an enjoyable experience. In particular its strengths lay in its strong hand of direction, and the vast array of fun, touching and class levels of acting from its entire cast. And its clever use of digital photography that plays to its strengths and throughly avoids its weaknesses, displaying the Coen brothers adept and adaptability in filmmaking.

The music of this feature was fairly acceptable, it was unremarkable but since there are six distinct ballads, very little musical development or attachment could have been developed either way. In addition to this I felt that the idea of connecting all these narrative by a book, is while a fairly common, but reliable idea. It feels like a quiet story around a campfire, and sells the old western theme more strongly.

Although my rating overall would average this film to a 3.16. I care not for mathematics in this artistic context and give this film a 3.5 (7/10, as I was rating out of 5 stars the whole way through) overall.

Green Book (2018)

One Of The Years Best.

[8/10 · 21 December 2018]

One of the years best, truly beautifully acted and directed, along with a heartwarming and simply fun story.

This feature is a great achievement, it was funny and engaging and very much worth the wait to finally see. In partiuclar the performances are the first pieces which pop out, the brilliant chemistry between Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali's at the core of the feature, placed in conjunction with the screenplay, gives the film great heart and emotion and an inspirational human story.

While Peter Farrelly's direction is not particularly special, it works extremely well. Most notably I suspect that the feature was shot on film, which brought out very poignant colours and sold the 1962 setting extremely well. As well as the classical look of film, further feeding the atmosphere. It has an extremely charming feeling, that delivers the change in seasons, the different locations of both poverty and wealth to a stark but consistent contrast. The direction does not feel forced, not at all, it flows magnificently thanks to Peter Farrelly. Nothing feels out of place, the editing is clever. The features aspect ratio of 2.00:1, which is uncommon for many films, gives a more unique frame and look to other cinematic endeavour, especially since I saw it in a cinema. It gives the look more character and personality.

Viggo Mortensen as Tony Lip (Vallelonga) was perfectly cast, although he has never delivered a performance of this type or ethnicity, he truly delivers the part like a natural. Some may call it a little over the top, but so was the real Tony Lip, it goes all the way round into a very memorable performance. Mortensen truly delivers deep charatcer, and his work with Linda Cardellini as Dolores Vallelonga I'd say was one of the highlights of the film. But of course, his chemistry with Mahershala Ali as Don Shirley is the highlight, the play between these two, one is an informal bullshitter and the other a high class musician, the sparring is fun and memorable. Truly well cast and directed, there's so many scenes, almost all deliver the perfect chemistry to near perfection.

Mahershala Ali as Don Shirley is the supporting role of this road feature. I believe that his performance here may be even better than in moonlight, for not only is there more content, but the layers that Ali delivered through this character are incredible. He is a black man in 1960's America, the best piano player possibly in the world, and keep's his sexuality and past quiet. He is a highly conflicted and rather tragic character, and Ali delivers his vulnerability, and bravery with such class and vexation. Truly it may be the best of his career so far. And how this spars with Tony Lip is truly amazing. They are polar opposites, and the film doesn't just say it, it shows it, it make's it a core aspect of their relationship, they they can come together in such a wonderful intertwined friendship. Ali's gives a highly emotional and very layered performance, extremely well processed and masterfully performed, both seem like real awards contenders.

The supporting cast of this film was very strong, they all had functions that were clear. Most of all was Linda Cardellini as Dolores Vallelonga, her performance was absolutely wonderful. I'd say it's even being overlooked by awards due to how good the other two were, its truly amazing in its own right.

The mix of drama and comedy in this feature is tonally near perfect. Many films would dream of being this consistent and well balanced, it gets it just right, and is a great achievement by the screenwriters and how director Peter Farrelly has constructed the film with his editor. The characterisation in this film is very strong, for almost a fifth of the film is carried by Viggo Mortensen as Tony Lip at the beginning. We meet him in the Copacabana nightclub in way that reminded my of Rick's in Casablanca. The vivid colours in the film and the suits, it displays who Tony is highly effectively and is some of the strongest characterisation I have seen all year. It was a perfect start to the film, without staring card and credits, just straight into it in a very natural and really probably my favourite opening to a film all year. The film has such a great message about friendship, overcoming racial boundaries and personal identity, it is a really good aura and atmosphere, particularly in these polarising times.

Musically this film is magnificent, I had heard that the films composer, Kris Bowers, had been a double for Ali on the piano. It seems absolutely seamless, we see Ali's full body while playing, its very well integrated. the score its self is beautiful, these compositions are complex and help to deliver Don Shirley's character, its part of his identity.

However, I must mention that in the innards of the second act, the film dragged a little too long. Perhaps if the film had been 10 maybe even 15 minute's shorter, it could have been a little bit slimmer but overall this didn't impede upon my enjoyment of the film overall much.

Overall, this was a wonderful movie, I enjoyed all parts of this feature. The spectacular cinematography that was poignant from start to finish, particularly in the opening. The wonderful performances that are truly worthy of all their recognition, and the great direction by Peter Farrelly, the beautiful music and heartwarming message the film delivers. Truly worth watching during this years christmas/holiday/awards season, great for all types of moviegoers, a great feel good movie. And truly a memorable one, 9/10.

Beasts of No Nation (2015)

An Important Message Of A Movie.

[7/10 · 21 December 2018]

A most stark, grim but enlightening feature. Incredibly told through talented direction and performances.

This film has many strengths and is incredible heavy in many aspects. This films greatest asset is its masterful performances, must notably of course from Abraham Attah as Agu and Idris Elba as the Commondant. The juxtaposition between Agu'a innocence and Idris Elba's corrupting cruelty onto Agu and the other child soilders.

This film shines a spotlight onto a topic which is highly forgotten and overlooked by most world media. And this film hits hard into the commonality of all humankind, this film focuses on a child in the most desperate of situations, it evokes emotions of mother love, fatherhood, innocence and bemusement of a child learning the world. The film portrays these most fundamental themes to a superb level, and the message it portrays is so splendidly put to screen in a highly candid and realistic feeling and evokes great emotion from any viewer.

The screenplay and directorial class of this film are the fundamental seeds from which this feature stems. Unlike many Netflix features which seem to blur in monostyalistic tones and cinematography, this film has a distinct voice that I haven't seen from any other Netflix film, the fact that the director and screenplay differentiate themselves so much is a great achievement in and of itself, and displays the very unique voice this film portrays.

The performance of Abraham Atta as Agu is one of the best child performances I have ever seen, perhaps even the best. His portra displays the childhood innocence to tormented and tortured soilderhood which such prowess and emotion. Even only 30 minutes into the feature I was rooting heavily for him and the heartbreak of being separated from his mother. His performance never lets down or weakens, and is just as strong in both languages he uses.

Idris Elba as the 'Commondant' is also rather a unique performance. He is a highly intimidating figure who seems like a classic 'strong man' at first but becomes highly layered, he has fears for his position and yet acts like a 'father' to his men and yet still abuses them both mentally and physically in the most abhorrent ways. This is the kind of character who is present in mangy features but here is not clichèd, one feels true fear of him.

The cinematography as I had already stated is very distinct from most other Netflix motion pictures. It is extremely vibrant and deeply layered, the jungles feel dense and the towns compact yet there is so much sunlight and the colours are rich. This film doesn't feel bland at all, however some of the camera work is fairly standard in places. In parts it is truly magnificent, such as when Agu runs away from his town into the jungle or near the end in the trenches. But some parts feel fairly standard in particular towards the third act of the story.

This film has a very unique voice. And is a great achievement in raising awareness for a part of the world that is most overlooked and humanising those who suffer. The film deliberately does not give a specific name to where it takes place to not have the burden of pre-conceived opinions on what we think of Africa and is conflicts, this is a great strength into developing emotion within the narriative.

Although I must say that in parts the film it feels over stretched, and a little too long to where the focus is lost in places but still holds emotional weight. And of course some of the cinematography is fairly standard, along with a slew of secondary characters who have little effect on the narritiave and serve only to develop the main character but are weakened themsevelves.

Overall I give this film a 7/10, as I was not fully ready to brace the depth and emotion of the film, and the incredible weight it delivered, but this is not a flaw of the film. Some of the previously stated parts do weight against the film, it overstays it's welcome just a little too much. But overall is a must see for anyone interested and does a great service in humanising and raising awareness against the evil that takes place in our world as is often forgotten.

Dogtooth (2009)

Great But Not For Everyone.

[8/10 · 21 December 2018]

No one's quite has caught my attention as Yorgos Lanthimos has, and held it for such a feature. One of the most unique and brilliant cinematic experiences I've ever encountered.

This film is simply stunning. There is nothing else quite like it,it being first venture into Greek cinema and Yorgos Lanthimos directorial style, I have subsequently ordered the rest of his films on DVD. Everything is so unique, the cinematography which stems from the directorial style is simply one of a kind, it has such a distinct visual framing. Often showing entire characters, or half covered by walls and inanimate objects, I personally feel this is one of the best ways to focus attention and bring about a deeper understanding of character, better than extreme closeups or standard angles. It feels so natural and yet unnatural, a near perfect balance. A lot of the background in this extremely contained film remains static, this adds to the eerie tone to a level that I have never before experienced. Mainly due to the directors evidently matured and strong voice.

The performances are also extremely incredible, they are practically without fault. Christos Stergioglou, Michelle Valley, Angeliki Papoulia, Mary Tsoni, Christos Passalis and Anna Kalaitzidou all deserve the praise and recognition from this film. The characters feel so raw, more crude and real than almost all other films. The chemistry, pain, innocence, evil and wonder are all delivered with such assurance, confidence and talent that it is truly unforgettable.

The inherent black comedy film is beyond any motion picture I have seen. This is not a film for people who like being spoon fed, it is the polar opposite of a black comedy such as Three Billboards and Birdman which feel like un-nuanced loud features in comparison to this. The screenplay by the director and Efthymis Filippou in tandem with the direction is much to thank for this. The ridiculous and yet cruel evil situation depicted within this film is a common thought experiment for some and a nightmare if ever truly practiced, as this film depicts. The danger of the Cat and then the fish introduced into the pool and the missing brother. They are all made to bark like dogs, all to make the father seem stronger. The son is frustrated, no world and often ponders about in his life bubble only gratified by Christina. The daughter who learned something about the outside world, and the fathers anger. It is so raw, and almost feels like it could really happen, as it is deeply human and displays our most innate desires and emotions so clearly.

There is so much to praise, the directorial style, the performances, the cinematography, the timeless colouration that is very plain yet delivers in displaying the supposed purity but underlying evil of the household. Even down to the sound evokes and aids the tone, the set design in its angular walls and yet the house feels so big, such a little world yet it feels so big.

I understand that many would dislike this feature length motion picture, a lot of people wouldn't get it. It is very subtle, some would call it boring or too long. And even I felt it was a little draggy in places. Also some may take distaste to the fact that this film gives no context, and just launches in. Leaving the audience to ponder and to slowly be delivered this world one piece at a time, but with modern audiences who like to be spoon fed more and like simpler plots, they wouldn't like this movie. Thus limiting this films broader appeal.

Overall this is a truly great film, very much worth watching if one is interested in something very different from the usual tat one encounters these days. 8/10

Blue Is the Warmest Colour (2013)

One Of France's Finest Cinematic Pieces.

[8/10 · 21 December 2018]

Such a beautiful work of art. The colour, performances all enlighten this film into a modern classic status and excellent anyone starting in french cinema.

There is so much to praise about this feature. Running at 179 minutes, it is no small motion picture, yet dotted throughout are near perfect moments of dramatic cinema. At the heart of this film lay its two greatest anchors, the screenplay and leading performances.

Adele, played by Adèle Exarchopoulos is the first that we are introduced to, the young and slightly reserved student who will have the romance of a lifetime. Her performance I believe is a tiny bit stronger than her counterparts but there is truly very little difference in quality between them. Though her career has been short and this being her first major endeavour in film, this may be what defines her in the decades to come. Truly this is one of the greatest performances of the decade. She delivers the bewilderment and fear while infusing the want for adventure, for something new. The film explores the characters wants and desires, even if she is jittery at first. She played this conflict superbly, and then her constant want and need for Emma. Then in post break-up they are in animosity, and the heartbreak and onset once again of fear is beautifully delivered. Once upon their meeting anew, she portrays the emotionally bruised, numbed and now more flat Adèle with such prowess and pure talent. Truly this is one of the best performances I have ever seen in a motion picture.

On the other side lay Emma, portrayed by Léa Seydoux. Her performance is almost on par with Exarchopoulos, but has slightly less of the gravitas, but is still truly an outstanding performance in its own hard earned right. The performances strengths lay in the rawness of the emotions, for Emma is less reserved, more loud and adventurous than Adèle. Emma is the one who leads Adèle, and Seydoux portrays this perfectly to every note. The audience feels great empathy for both characters throughout the film, and some are even left ambivalent about who to root for in the later acts of this film. For both are so superb, and have strengths in different places, and this sparring between them that is present in almost every scene they are in truly rises the film into its most magnificent moments and cinematic achievements.

One must comment on this films cinematography and how this works side by side with the costume design, make up & hairstyling and direction. The films title is 'Blue Is The Warmest Colour', and the colour blue is present in almost all scenes, and many of the individual shots. From Emma's hair, to the coats, shirts, wall papers, water, sky, cafe's and so many more that I failed to catch. This stylistic choice is extremely clever, albeit common, but is executed in a thoughtful and artistically pleasing manner. The cinematography has graded the films shots to compliment the emotion of the film, in particular as it follows Adèle. Scenes of anger feel raw, focused and sharp; love is deep, rich and layered; happiness is also rich, multicoloured, and extreme closeups. The angles all compliment the emotion and tone of the scenes they employ, this is an achievement that a lessing amount of films employ in the modern era, and to see a film use it so extensively and successfully is truly worthy of great recognition.

Put into companionship with the cinematography, the set design is made ever more effective by the colouration. Displaying the difference in setting most effectively, for instance the difference in architecture and design between a house and educational institution. The costumes all complimented the characters, no silly promotional or reference shirts that I could notice, it allows the audience to focus entirely on the character and delivered wonderful suspension of disbelief.

The screenplay is one of the great assets of this feature. How it depicts the love, in particular this Lesbian relationship, having to keep it somewhat quiet, the societal conflict that lingers within Adèle all are truly well delivered. The intensity of some scenes, both loud and quiet is extremely well crafted, in both inter character fights and the wonderment of this entirely new world and life that Adèle is exploring. The film sustains these themes for the entirely of its run time, without using cliche or breaking it unnecessarily. Every scene feels like it contributes (almost) to the overall narrative. Its as if it (almost) is a very tight ship, no leaks, it all flows so naturally (almost).

Despite this, some moments of this film are on the weaker side. I felt that it was maybe a little too long, some scenes felt a little unnecessary and I felt that the art gallery scene wasn't as well executed as could have been. In addition to this, the music felt a little bit forgettable, however this could have simply been as I am relatively new to non-english language cinema and wasn't taking in the sound as well as I do in my native tongue. (And not the 'Almost's become relevant): But now, I must mention the graphic lesbianism in this film: I felt that it was professionally performed and the camera angles were revealing and the colours were very ambient of the 'loving' atmosphere present in those moment. But over fifteen minutes of (dis)continuous sex across the film is a bit excessive. As Chris Stuckmann said: 'Some consider it high class French porn' - I cannot say that those people are wrong but I wouldn't go that far other than to say it was a bit excessive and overly graphic in places, but I do understand what Abdellatif Kechiche was trying to achieve, to display the intense love between the two characters, it was just 'overly done'.

At last, I must overall say that this is truly a wonderful film. It may not be for all, I can understand that the runtime and graphic sex may put some off, it nearly put me off, but this truly worth seeing for its masterful direction and performances with outstanding technical aspects. It keeps the suspension of disbelief on more successfully than almost all other films, it is truly an immersive experience. And a great starting point (Like the film Amélie) for anyone looking into foreign or specifically french cinema, and one of the best films of the decade. 4/5.

Creed II (2018)

A Vast Spectacle.

[7/10 · 1 December 2018]

What a spectacle to behold. Simply great performances, wonderful choreography, clever camera usage and a great addition to this long and epic saga.

I must state that this films strength lay in its strong performances, I wouldn't go so far as to call them magnificent, but they are good. Dare I even say slightly weaker than the first Creed motion picture, but still very strong. Michael B Jordan was a joy to behold, great work with Tessa Thompson. A very deep and visceral performance, filled with likeable emotion, but still nothing too special. Thompson I believe is truly a rising star, and shines very strongly in her dramatic performances and this is a fine addition to her cinematic anthology.

Sylvester Stallone once again really hits the mark as the classic Rocky Balboa, sparring with such finesse with Jordan. though as I already stated, I believe this to be something of a slight step down from its immediate predecessor. It is a tragedy to hear the news of his stepping down as Rocky, presently it is not known to complete certainty wether this is true or not. But if it is, this was a highly fulfilling performance, and one that will be remembered as a true highlight of his career. All of the Rocky films, but particularly in his later years in Creed, this has been his best work in some would argue, decades.

Steven Caple, Jr definitely has a voice that is distinct from Ryan Coogler, the fighting style definitely is different, but still consistent enough for a gentle flow between the films. The way the fight was handled was not messy, none of this film feels jittery, it really doesn't miss a single beat.

The cinematography was certainly of interest, the colouration focused extensively on deep and light blue hues throughout. Delivering the Drogo's an their Ukrainian/Russian roots very clearly though this clever use of colour. The angles were highly competent, nothing really to criticise, other than it felt a bit standard, definitely not bad. One moment which does standout, is the arrival of Adonis Creed during the final match, that was very interesting. The cinematography in this film was overall very competent but felt a little standard in places.

The screenplay, by Stallone and Juel Taylor felt was by no means bad, but it was very routine. This is something that doesn't sit well in my court of opinion. Yes, this film is good, it is exhilarating and tense, loving and fearful, but it uses the same techniques as previous instalments. Its the same stuff, played again. If it ain't broke don't fix it, which is fair enough, but it feels like a very, very similar product. This film is good, it has wondrous moments, great montages, great dialogue and chemistry, particular with the three main characters, and the more fleshing out of the Drogo antagonists was most appreciated, but it felt a little like the leftovers on Boxing day. Sure its good, but it doesn't feel like the main event that the first Creed film did, this just ain't no Christmas Turkey.

Therefore, while I enjoyed the film and I truly commend its strengths in (although ever so slightly weaker) performances and its directorial take, I cannot claim happiness in its overall execution. But of one overlooks these things I take flaw upon, It is still a very strong and highly enjoyable experience. 7/10

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Unforgettable.

[8/10 · 1 December 2018]

What a movie. Stark, cold and yet rich in character, development and suspense. Truly an achievement in all aspects.

Most notably I must praise the decorous performances from all actors. Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Hannibal Lecter is truly a performance for the ages, something to be remembered for its sheerly raw portrayal of such a twisted, crude, manipulative and frankly evil character. It could have very easily fallen into cliche and been corny and uninteresting, but due to Anthony Hopkins caliber as an actor and Jonathan Demme's masterful directing, it is truly a performance to which all others in its field must be compared for the decades to come. The audience feels the shrill and cruelty oozing from his every word, it is an archetypal career defining performance.

Jodie Foster was absolutely spectacular as Clarice Starling, once again. this is a career defining performance. It plays on par with Anthony Hopkins, as they spar between the glass, going to and fro between emotion, disgust, curiosity and fear. For they both feel these emotions to one another, and it gives the audience a true experience, unseen in many films. She plays the hard Agent Starling to near perfection, displaying her wonder and fear of the case, and her young naiveness but displaying that it is suppressed. A highly multi-layered character that very few actresses could perform with such gravitas and capability.

The rest of the cast must be commended, for they all deliver in their respective strengths. Most notably Scott Glenn as Jack Crawford and the other prison inmates. As well as Ted Levine as Buffalo Bill, playing the confused, conflicted and disgusting character whose emotions and frustrations for not being let a sex change led him to take 'revenge' on women. I believe that Ted Levine delivers this moral inner conflict extremely well, most notably when he is silent, in particular the dancing scene where it is only him and a woman's scalp upon his head. Truly disgusting but absolutely masterful acting and film making.

The directing by Jonathan Demme very much shines through into the final product. Although I have not seen his other features, his style is highly distinctive as is shown within the film. When put in tandem with the cinematography, the extreme closeups on faces and the lack of many wide shots makes the feature feel constricted, like a lack of breathing space. This works to its advantage, as it adds to the fear, bemusement and harrowing nature of the subject matter. Then when it does pan into larger atmospheres, it indicates that turmoil is to come. Such as how the holding facility in Tennessee for hannibal Lecter is an open room, then it devolves into calculated chaos.

This clever use of cinematography works as great strength to the film, further aided by Howard Shore's distressing score. It truly compliments the film and does not dictate emotion, it heightens them. As it works with the film and not for it, this makes it stand out within the Horror/Thriller genre.

The more technical aspects, such as the sound design all are eerie to further heighten the distressing suspense and are great additions to the feature. The costumes are all well designed and help to compliment the character traits, most notably with Ted Levine and Clarice Starling they help to indicate their characterisation and emotional story, particularly where they start in the beginning of the film as characters.

Although I greatly enjoyed this feature, it has some weaker aspects. Hannibal Lecter disappears for a good portion of the film, and as he of such note in his long disappearance it actually somewhat detracts from the film. However when he reappears it is a exceedingly good moment. The film portrays the violence extremely gruesomely, which I understand it part of the narrative and genre but does not match up with my taste exactly, but I understand why it is as prevalent as it is and I cant criticise it as filmmaking since this simply a personal view of mine.

I felt as if some characters were only servants to further Starlings characterisation, although the scenes in which this takes place are effective, those other characters feel a little wasted, such as Anthony Heald as Frederick Chilton, although his characters final fate is highly effective, but also Jack Crawford felt a little too bland as a character and not developed as strongly as could have been, but this doesn't detract from the film much as his characterisation is present but not as strong as it had the potential to be.

On the whole I very much liked this film, the acting, directing, score, sound and screenplay are all great strengths to make such as stark and memorable film. I would definitely recommend this film and give it a truly good and firm 8/10

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)

Most Disappointing Film Of The Year.

[2/10 · 1 December 2018]

Truly horrendous. Easily the most disappointing film I have seen all year, on a fundamental level this film was flawed, the primary culprit bing J.k Rowling and the extreme amounts of creative dominance she must have been given in the writing process.

First, I must praise certain aspects of this motion picture, although there is little to commend. The performances were for the most part a strength (Although some let the side down), most notably Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore was wonderful as the caring, charming and more complex young Dumbledore. In addition to this, I must comment that Johnny Depp was a surprisingly positive cast member, also Eddie Redmayne was alright, a little overdone on the mumbling aspect but still a pleasure to see. The rest of the cast was fairly competent with the exception of those that will be stated later on.

The screenplay of this film, what can I say. I have only negatives to deliver on this aspect. I can only image that what occurred was similar to George Lucas during the Star Wars Prequels - constantly surrounded by people who would only say 'Yes' to all the decisions. Because they are the one who mad the great original series, surely they can do no wrong. Oh how history has repeated Itself.

This screenplay fails on the basic fundamentals of story telling, show don't tell. Most of this picture is two hours of continuous uninteresting drear, badly written with actors struggling to convey the poor choices and dialogue delivered by Rowling. I may be mistaken but in one scene in particular, in Hogwarts, Theseus Scamander gets called a 'Weasley' - If this is memory is true, it is symbolic of the shoddiness and laziness of the screenplay and many of the the basic failures of this film.

The film follows two almost entirely unconnected threads, one of Credence and the other of Scamander. Both are boring, and the juxtaposition between them is jarring and fuel for confusion. The Credence plot-line is particularly of failure, it is highly unclear and unexplained, and is just 45 minutes of useless meandering with no emotional impact or significance to the plot as a whole. I even found Ezra Miller to almost seem as of he was struggling to even portray this incredibly bland, standard and boring character. I am one who knows a fair amount about the Harry Potter universe and at first I even didn't get the Nagini reference, until she became a snake in a very unnecessary and out of the blue scene, for she has zero effect upon even Credences story, I cant remember if she spoke a single line, and was so badly delivered by her actress by the fault of Rowling's screenplay.

Newt Scamander's plot-line was almost equally as uninteresting and badly executed, for in his plotline, he barely does anything. Once could have removed Tina, Jacob, Queenie, Leta Lestrange, Theseus, Yusuf and Abernathy and the plot-line would have ended in petty much exactly the same place. It is overcrowded, and it is truly a waste of acting talent. For all these performers are of a high caliber and here do nothing. All these characters were uninteresting with the exception of Queenie who had a somewhat interesting arc but was executed badly due to Rowlings screenplay, this singular arc had much more potential.

This plot-line is extremely convoluted, Newt Scamander has just over an hour of screen time, despite this being his movie, he is surprisingly not in it a great deal. There is one scene in particular which evokes my mention of the lack of the basic "show don't tell" fundamental of story telling. In this scene Leta Lestrange, Yusuf and the rest of the gang excluding Queenie, they use flashbacks to explain a plot thread about one characters lineage. It is extremely convoluted, and involves the Titanic, forced exposition and some complain about forced diversity (In making one of the Lestrages Black) but I dot not say that is a valid criticism. Overall this is supposed to tie up and be an evocative emotional moment for the majority of the characters in the narrative, but as the characters had little to no initial characterisation, the convolutedness only adds to the boredom, as the audience simply does not care for what is being presented, as well as how it is just exposition bing vomited at the audience, it is flimsy, boring and at the most fundamental bad film making, and entirely undefendable.

As a result, all of the new characters introduced in this feature hold no significance to the plot, nor are emotionally invested in, thus a waste of time. In addition to this, Jacob is fairly wasted in this feature, he doesn't grow as a character and simply tags along like a fish out of water that is no longer funny for the most part. Although the running salamander joke was effective, but this was his sole contribution to the film, all he does is look shocked or hold buckets.

Tina Goldstein played by Katherine Waterston is absolutely wasted as both a character and an actress. Such promise laid in this films precursor and yet contributes nothing to this feature, she had no function to the story nor any emotional impact on the audience at all. A total waste of Katherine Waterston who is a great talent in other motion pictures.

Gellert Grindelwald was played by Johnny Depp. And wow, what a mixed bag, one the one had he was handled well by Depp however in terms of characterisation and villainy, Rowling has really let the side down. Apart from the reasonably good opening scene, Grindelwald is unthreataning, bland and disappears for large chunks of the narrative. Fo a film which bares his name, he was hardly the focal point (Nor was Newt Scamander, thus who is the foci of this film?) Grindelwald flat out says he doesn't want to kill muggles, or hurt them, so why is he a threat? What are his crimes? All the characters simply talk about how bad he was, it is never shown apart from one cliche scene of killing a family, it hold little emotional wight or significance. Once again this flaw falls on Rowling and fundamental rule of "Show don't tell". Which I needn't divulge again. But this displays the fatal flaw of this film, how it fails on a very basic level, to deliver a crude, boring, uninteresting and convoluted product. In addition to this, Rowling includes very unsubtle Anti-Trump undertones which when delivered well can be thought provoking but in this film, are not delivered well and give an even more jarring and convoluted third act.

Now in must explore the screenplay as a whole. Of the greatest holes in the consistency of this feature is its two concurrent plots. For they are strenuously linked and are left unexplained, this results in headache, confusion and boredom. Nothing is resolved by the end, since there was no real problem at the beginning either, it feels like over two hours of useless meandering just propped up by bad hints to earlier greater works and setting up a future series, and every single film ever made in which isn't focus was to set up more films has been bad. For this film has no describable plot, it's a mess. Unlike other more successful films that have set up a future, such as phase one Marvel or heck even the first Hobbit film, they had discrete narratives of their own, and characters to invest in, this film does not have those fundamentals.

The plot-twists of this film are unconvincing and unimaginative and hold no weight other than that hey relate to earlier films. This a lazy trick used by Rowling and is simply bad storytelling. For due to the lack of proper character development or emotional weight, the twists hod, no impact to the audience and thus are simply cheap ploys used by Rowling to try and save the feature, which clearly didn't work on most of the audience.

On a technical level, this film holds some good aspects. The sound design and visual effects are for the most part fun and vivid but are fairly standard by modern blockbuster standards. The cinematography though, oh my god, it is terrible. Extreme disorientating closeups then suddenly standard unimaginative angles. It is truly jarring. The colouration is so incredible bland, other than the blue fake dragon at the end, no other image sticks in my head as memorable or even noteworthy or fun. It is almost black and white, so grey and depressing. This doesn't feel like a family friendly fantasy film about fun silly creatures and a Magizoologist, this feels like a fascist take over. If I had children I wouldn't show them this film, its grey, boring and jarring, all things unsuitable for young children over great distances of time.

As a result of the abhorrently bland cinematography and colour palette, the costume design, set design, makeup and visual effects all suffer. The image becomes flat, uninteresting, after the last film won the Academy Award (Oscar) for Costume Design, this colouration choice really does an injustice to this achievement, and to the hard work the costume designers must have gone to to trump their previous achievement. Nothing about this films image is good, its truly a mistake and must be fixed if people are to remember any future instalments, or find them fun. For this blandness works against the film, it is not stylish but instead is boring. Not like 'Schindler's List' which was in almost pure B&W which gave the film character or more recently the film 'Her' which used a lot of red hues to heighten the loving and bemused atmosphere. This film has no clear focus as to what its colouration/cinematography was seeking to achieve. For if it seeks to be dark, it belongs not in a film called 'Fantastic Beasts', the pathetic fallacy fails on a fundamental level, the semantic's do not match up. This film sis so confused in so many aspects. Even the score was completely unremarkable and completely forgettable, I cant remember a single part of it. Showing that its only function was to dictate emotion, not to heighten or compliment it as a good score does. 2/10.

Me Before You (2016)

A Wonderful Movie.

[7/10 · 1 December 2018]

A truly loving and endearing feature, with a talented cast in good use and very well meaning intentions.

I enjoyed this film, greatly, most upon which lay in the interesting premise and wonderful performances. One immediately points to Emilia Clarke and Sam Claflin, for their chemistry truly drives this film, and scenes where they are separated have great weight as one can genuinely feel the disconnect and worriment felt by the characters, which is a great achievement on the part of the actors, screenplay and director.

The films screenplay is worthy of praise, however is also the root of some of the films flaws. The motion picture is an adaptation a novel, both were written by the same individual (Jojo Moyes). The screenplay builds upon the characters highly successfully in the first two acts of the picture, and delivers the dilemma with clarity and respect.

However the third act, I thought to be weaker, for I believe for Will's motives to not have been explored as deeply as could have been, for it was told and not necessarily shown, and what was shown didn't hit the emotive mark as well as it could have. Therefore when he chooses his final choice, and Lou's subsequent decision: it feels a little premature, a bit too out of the blue, the twist isn't as convincing as could have been. Thus this weakens the third act, although by the final scenes between the two is of great emotional impact, and rectifies many of the problems by the narratives end.

The supporting cast was of particular importance to how the story unfolded, I felt that some were stronger than others. I felt that Charles Dance and Vanessa Kirby were the most impactful upon the story and delivered as such in their performances. However I felt that Will's mother, played by Janet McTeer could have been stronger and had a greater part to play in the narrative, although the performances from the actress and the aforementioned actors were all splendid.

On the other hand, I believe for the doctor called Nathan to be a very telling character to the film, in that he spoke and delivered what he had to say and then left, as a expositionary source. That his impact was minimal and could of had a much more emotive arc and relationship with Will and Lou.

However, I must not forget the wonderful use of colour in this film; with particular praise for the costume design and cinematography. The costume designers for this film did a splendid piece of work, in endressing Emilia Clarke in all the happy, striped and multicoloured costumes, without ever coming across as silly, but as loving, friendly and caring. The cinematography further highlighted this interesting colour palette, and helped to compliment it, without the film descending into looking like madness or a fairy world. Apart from that, the angles are clear and fairly standard, but yet deliver upon the dramatic function to a fair and adequate quality, overall the cinematography aids and enhances from the film and doesn't detract from it, as it could have very easily fallen into more silly territory.

In the end, I did very much enjoy this film. I particularly liked the performances and the very loving and jolly atmosphere sustained thought the feature, which brings a fun and entertaining film. Though the screenplay at times hindered certain aspects of the film and some characters, it played to great strengths in other areas. Thus I give the film a healthy 7/10. I would recommend this film, particularly to people looking for something romantic or for quiet evenings and slow days.

Lost in Translation (2003)

One Of The Decades Best.

[10/10 · 1 December 2018]

Across this feature a beautiful narrative of friendship, loneliness and love unravels across the hectic array of Tokyo, driven by Sofia Coppola's masterful directing and Bill Murray's and Scarlet Johansson's career defining performances.

The beauty of this film is so beyond others, the simple colouration done on classic film feels so sincere, and yet, delivers on the loneliness and then later the love, and caring that develops between the two main characters. The clever cinematography delivers the foreign dynamic, the wonder and bemusement of an entire wold lost in translation, yet being in the middle of it. This immersion is on a level that only few films ever could achieve.

This films beauty stretches to its heartfelt screenplay, which characterises its figures so successfully, so clearly and delivers upon their lives complexities and worries so masterfully. A wonderful story, though some may say it meanders, I truly understand and grow to care for the characters more deeply, and thus in my opinion it strengthens the feature. The screenplay also delivers upon the initial awkwardness, when shot in tandem with the cinematography, the tone for each scene is display and inferred enough for the audience to immerse in the emotions more deeply than in other films.

The acting is truly of the highest league. Bill Murray has even said this was his favourite performance. Together, coupled with the beautiful screenplay, Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray have such a sweet, colourful and loving chemistry that clearly shines through into the final product. Theres so many scenes to display this combination, what comes to my mind most is the scene following the party where Charlotte leans her head on Bob, and the final scene between the two. In addition to this, Giovanni Ribisi is fantastic as always, and the rest of the supporting cast deliver upon their characteristic functions to the plot, in the upmost quality.

Unlike many post 2000 films, the music in this film is truly of remembrance, the slow guitar and quiet melodies and motifs that repeat and develop throughout the scenes truly compliment the feature. The music does not dictate the emotion, this is up to the audience, it acts as a vehicle to stratify whatever emotion the viewer feels in the scene. This is a highly uncommon achievement, which is worthy of great praise.

This film evokes different thoughts and responses from all people, as it has a mature subject, children would not enjoy it. But I feel very personally about this film and truly it holds a special place in my heart as one of my favourite films. Due to its beauty, decorum and truly pure craft.

Despite this, no film is without flaw. On the subject of meandering, some scenes were executed to near perfection, however on some but not all repeat viewings certain scenes lack the same impact, particularly in the first half of the film, though the later scenes grow in their meaning and emotion upon repeat viewings.

Overall, I truly love this film and give it a very high 9/10.

Hunter Killer (2018)

Starkly Average.

[5/10 · 1 December 2018]

A rather by the books standard action feature. Of course, when one strolls into a late 2010's Gerard Butler film, it is what one expects, but in this instance, the entire film feels 'standard'.

All the jokes are normal, the characters are plain, the action is fun, the plot developments are just fine, the music in standard and forgettable, the cinematography is fine. And all these things, are not necessarily bad, there all just average, like as if they just did a 9 to 5 job and called it a day. It is not cold or hollow, it has its moments, but they are artificial. Its as if there was no passion from any of the actors or the crew. It is all just fine, its not bad, its just all fine.

This is extremely uncommon for a film to be. It is so unimaginative, but it is executed in such a competent fashion that it is not inherently flawed, all the methods work. Nothing stands out, as good or bad. Gary Oldman tried, but it seems as if the director gave no encouragement. This film feels like such a product, like Kraft Cheese Singles, you love 'em or hate them, but they're the standard.

This film therefore is so middlingly average, it is actually in intriguing how they made such a constant result. It does what it says on the tin, this film is perfectly passable, but nor is it anything more than that, and neither is it bad.

Therefore I give it the highly standard score of 5/10, for it is a proven recipe, which works, but is nothing more than that. The film is so stylistically static, its just a product, just 'movie', nothing special at all, but not bad at the same time.

A Dangerous Method (2011)

A Most Interesting Feature.

[6/10 · 1 December 2018]

I was made curious by this motion picture, having not seen a David Cronenberg feature before, I watched with an open mind. And was, for the most part, pleased with what was delivered.

This features strengths lay primarily in its topic and performances, most stellar by Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud. The phycological theme was made clear and centre in the feature, though at times it felt to be under explained just a tad.

The cinematography was fairly standard, though the coloration was very vivid and bright, and truly sold the features location in the Alps and Vienna, and on the whole the cinematography did not detract from the film.

I felt at times as though Keira Knightley's performance was exaggerated, I understand the difficultly of such a character, and the accent was unconvincing at times. On the whole I think this to be among her weaker performances, but it is not a bad performance, but a weaker one amongst the films others.

Viggo Mortensen, was as always, a pleasure to watch. His presence in every moment of the film, I think to be the highlights of the feature; in particular his chemistry with Michael Fassbender, the father figure-son theme and the clashing of ideas. This gave some very stimulating and intriguing moments of characterisation, display their inner motives and world view.

David Cronenberg's direction, though I can not compare or collate this to his other works, was a unique and memorable delivery. His style is highly distinctive, and gives the feature more character in a time when many films feel monostyalistic, to see a more unique take on direction was refreshing.

Overall, I feel as if the screenplay did not deliver in its strengths enough: too much time spent on the sub-plot with Keira Knightly and the affair and less of the Freud/Jung conflict. And even the refreshment of Vincent Cassels interesting inclusion as Otto Gross didn't have about screen time or exploration.

In the end, I feel as if this film could have been more great, it had grander potential, such as even exploring their works criticism, religious aspects and of course the Freud/Jung conflict of beliefs and ideas. But it is still an enjoyable and interesting feature, thus a 3/5, only slightly above the average film.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

One Of The Best Old Westerns.

[8/10 · 1 December 2018]

Bountiful servings of fun, excitement, and two wondrous performances by Paul Newman and Robert Redford.

A entrancing classic of old westerns, set across the vast expanse of the frontiers and into the Andean foothills. A truly memorable experience and adventure of two friends and their crime filled journey.

I truly enjoyed this film, most strongly I felt that the screenplays characterisation of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was its greatest asset, encoupled with the strong chemistry between the two leads in addition to the Kid's love interest played endearingly by Katherine Ross.

The highly stylistic methods of delivery within the film, with its somewhat unorthodox narrative for a western, bring a unique and unforgettable film. It is as tight as a drum and wonderfully directed, with many successful executions in shock, awe and beauty layered into the picture. The clever use of cinematography, to transition of hued black and white into vibrant colour adds to the tone and style of the picture, to a highly successful degree. Also, the famous song of "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head", is very joyous, fun and a real hallmark of family friendly, wholesome cinema when in the context of the film.

However, I feel that certain scenes were not of the same excitement. In particular, the chase scene across what felt like half of America, I felt dragged just a little over its welcome, but I understand it's great function in building how we perceive the characters, their friendship and trust.

Overall, I highly enjoyed this film and give it a healthy 8/10, for it is a masterwork in acting, editing, though it may drag a tad in places and feel a little repetitive in some instances, but I do not feel that these hinder ones enjoyment of the film to any great extent.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Great Coen Brothers Film.

[7/10 · 1 December 2018]

A most interesting feature, a masterclass in directing and acting. The editing is done in such a way that great tension is sustained for elongated periods of the run time, this is highly engrossing and masterful for the film to have achieved.

While all performances were of a quality standard unseen by most features, I particularly think that Javier Bardem is astounding as the sadistic and psycophatic fellow he portrays, due to this gluttal voice, uneasy footsteps and building of 'creepiness' - it's a wonderful performance. Also I believe that Tommy Tee Jones, Josh Brolin and Kelly MacDonald all deserve great praise.

Roger Deakins cinematography, along with the Coen brothers directing and the editing, brings a very vivid, tense and strangely colourful palette. One truly feels as if they are in Texas and Mexico, coupled with the lighting brings a very clear and timeless image.

However, I must come to what I did not enjoy, while I enjoy most Coen brothers motion pictures, this one is slightly weaker in my opinion, simply due to my own personal preferences about story and characterisation, which this film differs in. Therefore while this film is a masterclass in certain aspects, it is not of my personal taste entirely, dare I say there was things I did not enjoy: yes. I found that the music was relatively absent, or forgettable, while I understand that this is a styalistic choice, I feel that in retrospect that it somewhat weakened the film.

I feel that while I write this after having just seen it, not a few minutes ago, that in time it will grow on me, and I will appreciate its masterclass and excellent craft more than I already do, and it's pitfalls in my own personal opinion will be overlooked. But I think that right now, it's a 7/10.