tom-43722 Reviews

Soul's Ark (1999 Video)

Could have easily been trash but is elevated by good acting and a creepy atmosphere

[4/10 · 8 November 2023]

This movie is obviously very low budget and the writing and cinematography leave a lot to be desired. The script isn't very focussed and nor is the film particularly nice to look at. Although the visual style had some thought put into it, it needed better cameras and a better cinematographer. There's some nice editing here and there but also a few places where it needed work, most notably when it jumps between 2 very different conversations that aren't linked to each other. Regardless, there's still some stuff to appreciate here.

The creepy music and slow buildup creates a mysterious atmosphere that tickles ones curiosity to find out what's happening. There's even a moment where Galico and Keel are preparing to investigate a house and a cat jumps off the wall behind them. I think it was a lucky accident rather than a deliberate part of the movie because its presence is never brought up. Fortunately, due to cats' reputations of being involved with the supernatural, it helps the strange atmosphere.

Colin Baker and Carol Anne Ford are great actors while Wendy Padbury bounces off Baker very nicely, despite not being on his level. The movie's worth watching just to see these 3 outside of Doctor Who. Ford in particular is barely recognisable from her Doctor Who days and not just because she's significantly older. She has a more confident and commanding presence than she ever did as Susan but the movie wasted her. Baker is given more to do, managing to elevate the movie through his charisma and charming banter with Padbury but isn't given an interesting character to work with.

Erich Redman is great as Ryle, a close minded man who refuses to accept the presence of the supernatural. He could have easily come across as completely unsympathetic, especially due to his concerns about his reputation, but there is a moment where Redman manages to add a bit of depth by sounding concerned for his colleague as he runs towards a presumably horrific fate. Unfortunately, the film completely forgets about Ryle as it approaches the end of the story. A big issue is that there are no character arcs, not even for the one guy who has a good set up for one.

Because of the lack of focus and rather clumsy dialogue in the script, the film's ending is pretty weak. While the sound and atmosphere creates a satisfying illusion of buildup, the writing doesn't really support that illusion which leads to an unsatisfying conclusion. Nonetheless, I won't spoil what that conclusion is.

Unfortunately, this isn't a good movie. It has good moments, a solid use of music to create tension and a few strong performances. However good acting and good sound can't make up for a bad script and unappealing visuals. I'll give this a 4 out of 10, which upsets me because I really like Colin Baker as an actor. The man has the uncommon ability to elevate the projects he works on through sheer charisma but those projects tend to be low budget trash unworthy of his skills.

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

Worth the wait

[8/10 · 28 January 2023]

I'm one of the people who complained that James Cameron was taking far too long to make this movie. I'm also someone who was adamant about the fact that the first Avatar didn't need a sequel because it was a complete story on its own. However, although The Way of Water isn't as good as the first film, it was worth the wait.

Sam Worthington and Stephan Lang stole almost every scene they had as Jake Sully and Miles Quaritch respectively. Their hero and villain chemistry was excellent, mostly done through audio communication until they finally met face to face, at which point the testosterone levels went through the roof. One can tell that Jake and Quaritch despise each other, yet also have an unspoken mutual respect that any true warrior would feel towards a worthy opponent.

Zoe Saldana's ability to switch between Neytiri howling with grief to a deadly warrior in full murder mode was chilling. To avoid spoilers, I won't say why she was grieving but it's the most heartbreaking moment in the movie and the only time where one of Sam Worthington's co-stars actually managed to steal a scene from him.

Sigourney Weaver was in a unique situation, being the only onscreen performer in history to play a teenager whilst in her seventies. The decision to have her play Kiri could have backfired because although the CGI was able to flawlessly hide Sigourney's real age, many people in her situation would still have the body language of an old person. Watch Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci in The Irishman if you want to see how CGI can't hide the fact that they're unable to move as easily as they once could. Fortunately, Sigourney still has an extraordinary amount of physical strength and agility, so whenever she's moving, she does it in a way that looks as effortless as it would be for an actual teenager. My only criticism of her performance is a few line deliveries.

At it's core, this is a movie about family. However, there's more going on in the script than there was in the first Avatar, which had a very simple script. I'm not one of those pretentious idiots who thinks that a script needs to be complex in order to be good which is why I consider the first film to be a masterpiece. The Way of Water doesn't reach masterpiece status because this story has so much happening that it causes a few pacing issues. At one point in the finale, there was so much time spent on action that I completely forgot some characters were still struggling to survive underwater at the same time. Furthermore, unlike the first Avatar, there are loose ends that need to be tied up which makes another Sequel a requirement in order to finish the story.

The Matrix (1999)

Not bad, just overrated.

[7/10 · 25 October 2021]

I can see why this movie has such a passionate fanbase. Amazing action scenes, a decent albeit flawed script and a fascinating idea which holds it together.

However, I think The Matrix's legendary reputation is exaggerated and it's objective quality doesn't match the hype. This is mostly due to Carrie Ann Moss and, to a lesser extent, Keanu Reeves (God bless him, he's a wonderful human being but he's one of those "slow burn" actors who didn't achieve his potential until his later years). Put simply, they sucked in this movie. Kudos to them for their martial arts prowess but unfortunately, Moss and Reeves acting prowess wasn't up to the task. Reeves' innocence and naivety did bring some charm to Thomas Anderson AKA Neo but his bland performance didn't exactly make Neo a riveting character. He only seemed to be invested during the mission to rescue Morpheus. As for Trinity, she was just a bland chick in a leather outfit who had no chemistry with Neo. I think there was potential for a decent character if they had gotten a better actress but even in scenes where Trinity's friends were being slaughtered right in front of her, Moss failed to convey the pain, grief and anger that Trinity should have been feeling.

Even Laurence Fishburne had a rather stilted and bland delivery but to his credit, he still carried a fatherly sense of authority. After being taken out by Agent Smith, Morpheus inner strength showed through his resistance to the Agent's torture techniques. I can understand why some people would be disappointed that Morpheus isn't the unstoppable badass he was hyped up to be, but I think that's precisely the point. It's a "never meet your heroes" situation. I also like that it was hinted that Morpheus' blind faith in Neo could have resulted in disaster because it made him a more nuanced character who, despite his reputation as a wise and powerful man, is still capable of making mistakes.

Hugo Weaving's performance as Agent Smith has me slightly conflicted. On one hand, his strange delivery is not what I would call a good performance if he were playing a human character. On the other hand, Agent Smith is NOT a human character. He's an AI program who walks around wearing the facade of a human so I can't in good conscience call it a bad performance. My favourite scene from Smith was when he admitted to Morpheus that he hated the Matrix and wanted to break free. If I'm not mistaken, there are theories that Smith might have been The One instead of Neo and I think that scene could be used as evidence of that. Not conclusive evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

I think the main problem with The Matrix is that the characters around Neo and Trinity seem interesting. Neo and Trinity themselves do not. With stronger lead characters, this could go from a great film to an outright brilliant one.

No Time to Die (2021)

Annoyingly heartbreaking

[6/10 · 9 October 2021]

Due to the controversy around this movie pushing politics and the director even being quoted as saying "James Bond was basically a rapist", I was expecting this to suck. Having also been spoiled about Bond's death beforehand, I was ready for a disrespectful, insulting finale on par with the character reversal and outright assassination of Han Solo and Luke Skywalker respectively in Disney's terrible Star Wars trilogy.

What I got was movie that could be annoyingly on the nose with its SJW messaging but simultaneously managed to be a touching swan song to the Daniel Craig era. It was far from perfect and I feel that parts of the buildup to the final act were sloppy - there were times where I could tell where 1 of the 4 screenwriters' work ended and another began so it didn't flow as well as it could have - but in Bond's last moments, we see him as a one man army, mowing down goons left, right and centre and going out in in blaze of glory. Killing off James Bond was always going to be controversial but the way they handled it in no way demeaned him. Craig brought a combination of gravitas and tenderness to Bond's final moments, going out as the badass spy we all know he is and the loving husband and father that he could have been.

The film is anything but perfect though. Lashana Lynch's Nomi was a diversity checkbox that needed to be ticked. Despite Lynch's clear passion and valiant attempts to convey some nuance, the script gives her nothing to work with so it's blatantly obvious that the "strong independent black woman" is the beginning and end of her character. Even the moment where she asks M, played marvellously by Ralph Fiennes who proves himself a worthy successor to the excellent Judi Dench, to give Bond his 007 code name back felt like the screenwriters saying "there, he's 007 again, happy now?" instead of an authentic decision from the character. Bond and Nomi never have a moment of real connection that would make her willing to give him back his title. Furthermore, Halle Berry played a secret agent alongside Pierce Brosnan's Bond 2 decades ago and back then, it felt authentic instead of being obvious pandering.

If Ana de Armas' Paloma had taken over the 007 position, I'd accept it and perhaps even be outright pleased about it. In her short screen time, she had more personality and bounced off Bond in a more charming manner than Lynch did in the entire movie. Ana de Armas' performance had some of the corniness you would see older Bond movies, like Paloma's bubbly admission that she wasn't very experienced, but she could still kick ass and was willing to have fun with her brief role, bringing some levity to an otherwise serious movie. I should also note that her humorous moments felt like they were simply a part of Paloma's personality whereas when Bond has a humorous scene, it's clear that Daniel Craig is not entirely comfortable doing it. Granted, de Armas' part in the story was one were you can quite clearly see another screenwriter taking over but she did it so well that I wish she had much more screen time.

I cried when Bond perished. Many movies and TV shows have made me cry but I can't remember ever doing so in a James Bond movie, not even when we lost Judi Dench's M in Skyfall. Daniel Craig tends to be rather hit and miss as Bond, doing well in scenes that require pathos and gravitas but lacking the charm and humour of Pierce Brosnan, my personal favourite incarnation of the character. However, you can tell that he was aware that this is his last performance as 007 so he put all of his passion and talent into this project.

Frozen II (2019)

First was better

[5/10 · 15 January 2020]

One of the things I respect about Jennifer Lee is her decision to take her time with this sequel. After the success of the first Frozen, she could have thrown out a cash grab within a year or two and it would have made money. She could have an entire Frozen trilogy under her belt by now but instead, she decided to wait for 6 years and give us shorts instead. Regardless of what people think of Frozen 2 as a piece of art, anybody who calls it a soulless cash grab is just straight up wrong.

With that said, this movie isn't as good as the first one. The story is messy and either explains too much or doesn't explain enough whilst also veering off into scenes and songs that add nothing to the plot. Kristoff and Olaf are just kind of there and aside from Kristoff saving Anna from being crushed by rock giants and proposing to her, they don't have much to do. It's also easy to predict that Elsa's the missing 5th spirit because the only other character who might be qualified for that role is Olaf. I think they should have done that instead because 1) people can easily guess that Elsa's the spirit so making it Olaf would surprise them 2) Olaf's "When I Am Older" song would have been relevant because he'd need to grow up for that kind of responsibility and 3) it would give Olaf something to do aside from being comic relief.

Much like the first Frozen, this movie is carried by Elsa and Anna. In a reversal of the first film, Elsa takes centre stage which isn't surprising considering she stole the show in the first Frozen without even being the protagonist. In another reversal of the first movie, Anna's actually the one who grows the most as a person despite the fact that she isn't the main focus of the movie. Elsa has to take on a new role as the 5th spirit of the Enchanted Forest but being the bridge between the magical world and the normal world doesn't actually change her personality, whereas in the first Frozen, she went through a real character arc. However, they do show an aspect of Elsa that was never explored in the first movie and that is her grief about the deaths of her parents. In the first movie, the most we got about how the deaths of the King and Queen affected Elsa and Anna was them sitting on opposite sides of the locked door at the end of "Do you wanna build a snowman". This movie focusses more on the sisters dealing with loss and also shows that their parents left in the hopes of finding some kind of solution to Elsa's powers.

Idina Menzel was fantastic in the first Frozen and is just as amazing here. Although none of the songs are as memorable as Let It Go, she put her heart and soul into them just like she did in the first movie. At the age of 48, Idina has the right amount of maturity and dignity for a Queen but her voice also sounds so young and beautiful that it's easy to buy that Elsa's only 24 years old. She also still has that vulnerability that makes Elsa so endearing and stops her from seeming like an unstoppable force of nature. Essentially, Elsa IS an unstoppable force of nature but she never comes across as a Mary Sue because of the vulnerability and self-deprecation Idina brings to the character. Just like in the first movie, Elsa blames herself for things that aren't her fault or that were out of her control and I don't think that will ever fully go away because it's an fundamental part of who she is. I'm glad that trait wasn't changed because all good characters need flaws and insecurities. I've always been of the opinion that they could replace Kristen Bell with any other actress that has a youthful and energetic voice and Anna wouldn't be any different - though this movie challenges that assertion which I'll get to shortly - but they NEEDED Idina Menzel for Elsa because choosing anybody else would have resulted in a different character. Perhaps still a great character but she wouldn't be the Elsa that people fell in love with.

As mentioned before, Anna goes through the most personal growth as she becomes more responsible and grown up which culminates in her being crowned Queen at the end of the movie. Becoming Queen felt a bit sudden to me but looking back on the movie, she did seem to be growing more mature so there wasn't NO buildup to it. I just think they should have built it up more. However, Anna's still just as reckless and crazy as she was in the first movie as shown when she's willing to "follow you (Elsa) into fire" and deliberately provokes the dangerous rock giants. The strongest part of Kristen Bell's performance and the moment that made me rethink my assertion that you could replace her with any youthful sounding actress, was when Anna and Elsa were reunited just before Kristoff's proposal. Anna's sobbing and choking on her words because she's so happy that Elsa's okay and that Kristoff proposed to her. Other actresses can do that too but you couldn't just replace Kristen Bell with anybody who sounds young and guarantee the same result. There's also a really sweet scene where Anna and Elsa are remembering their mother whilst lying on the bed together and Elsa puts her head on Anna's shoulder. That was an adorable moment which also showed Anna acting like the big sister, despite being the younger sibling.

Another thing I like about this movie is that there's no villain. There are obstacles but no straight up bad guy because Elsa and Anna's treacherous grandfather, Runeard, is long dead by the time the movie begins, so they have to deal with the aftermath of his villainous deeds instead of confronting him directly. The closest anybody comes to a direct confrontation with him is when Elsa talks to his memory ghost about his fear of magic but of course, being a memory, Runeard can't hear her. It feels like the writers knew that they didn't need Hans to be a bad guy in the first movie so they decided to rectify that in this one by having no direct villain at all, only the memory of one, which also fits in with the theme about memories. They also explore the idea that water can remember things although the Water Horse that Elsa befriends isn't shown to directly influence this.

Joker (I) (2019)

I have a condition

[10/10 · 20 October 2019]

This movie makes it easy to pity the Joker. I felt sorry for him throughout the whole film but the part that made me pity him the most was when he tried to explain why he's laughing on the train and his two assailants just assaulted him without even trying to understand him. I imagine many people would probably pity him more when he tries to do stand up and his compulsive laughter interferes but for me, the little moment where he was trying to explain that he has a condition and desperately asking for a little compassion before getting his ass kicked was more upsetting. Whenever he laughs, it sounds like he's close to crying and the only time his laugh seems like one of genuine amusement, rather than just a result of his condition, is when he's on the talk show with Murray Franklin. Even his laugh in the asylum at the end seems like a pained kind of laughter like he still knows that his life is a tragedy and he's trying to turn it into a comedy.

Is Joaquin Phoenix a better Joker than Heath Ledger? Hard to say. They both have very different approaches and while Heath's Joker will always be iconic, Joaquin's Joker actually makes you feel sorry for him whilst also holding a mirror up to the ugliness in society. Yes, The Dark Knight did the latter but you never pity the Joker in that movie and his commentary on society was conveyed through his dialogue. In this movie, they show it. The assaults on Arthur in the streets and on the trains, Murray making fun of him and then forgetting that he'd done so because of how little he cared about Arthur's feelings, Thomas Wayne pretending he wants to help "the clowns" whilst also talking down to them and outright punching Arthur in the face when he just wants to form a relationship with him, it all reflects how messed up our society is right now. Switch "the clowns" with struggling people in real life and it shows that politicians and Hollywood will often talk big but 90% of them don't actually care about helping people less fortunate than themselves.

With all that said, Arthur Fleck isn't just a victim of tragic circumstances. It's easy to feel sorry for him but the movie never shies away from the fact that he's a dangerous man. Joaquin Phoenix's performance is very human, showing a man who's been beaten down constantly whilst also struggling to deal with a condition he can't control, but it also shows a man who casually carries a gun around, shoots Murray on live television, and finds murdering his own mother to just be part of the "comedy" that is his life. Speaking of his mother, I love the indication that she might have slept with Thomas Wayne and the Joker could be Batman's half-brother. It's never outright confirmed in the movie and it's entirely possible that it's just one of Joker's delusions but that's a take on their relationship I've never seen or even heard of before.

Robert De Niro turns on the charm as Murray Franklin and, of course, Joker sees right through him at the end of the film. When Murray comes to Arthur's dressing room and Arthur asks him to call him Joker because he had called him that in the past, Murray genuinely didn't remember the fact that he's made fun of him. De Niro plays a shallow celebrity in this movie who knows how to play to a crowd but when you get right down to it, he doesn't give a damn about the pain and difficulty that other people are going through. I imagine a fair few people in Hollywood, possibly including De Niro himself, are seeing themselves in his performance and it freaks them out because it forces them to face the fact that all the fame and glamour doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Most celebrities won't go out on a limb to help the less fortunate and this can make people resent them, which results in Murray getting a bullet in his brain.

The media is terrified of this movie. You know why? Because it's forcing them to see how ugly most of them are and how they can contribute to the rise of people like Joker. Murray represents all the self-absorbed, virtue signalling celebrities who pretend to care about the less fortunate but ultimately just want to make themselves look good. Celebrities who use their wealth to help people do exist - Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves are notable examples and they did it secretly for years before the media found out - but most of them are all talk and this pisses people off. While most aren't crazy enough to shoot their heroes in the head, people who are treated as inferior by celebrities will inevitably build up some resentment. Todd Philips and Joaquin Phoenix had the balls to look Hollywood and the media in the eye and suggest that they might be just as monstrous as The Clown Prince of Crime.

Then there's the ending. All I can say is that it reminded me of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining and, just like that movie, people are going to be talking about it for a long time to come.

Alita: Battle Angel (2019)

Passionate

[9/10 · 10 March 2019]

If I could describe this movie in one word, the title of this review would be it. James Cameron, Robert Rodriguez and Rosa Salazar's passion for this project shows in every scene of this movie. With Cameron's unfortunate habit of procrastinating for years on end before finally getting a project done - in the case of this movie it took him two freaking decades - it's good to know that he uses those years to ensure he's made the best movie possible.

Rosa Salazar is a fan of the manga and it shows. Every time she's onscreen, she's throwing everything into this movie. Aside from the fact that she can't actually bend her body in the way that Alita does after barely surviving her battle with Grewishka (which isn't her fault because even with training, that level of flexibility is extremely rare), she was perfect in this role, able to mix a hardened warrior with a curious teenager. While Rosa is 33 and Alita is over 300 it's easy to forget both the age of the actress and the age of the character because she has such a youthful personality when she's not kicking ass. Plus, despite her incredible combat abilities, Alita wasn't a Mary Sue and thank Jesus for that. Granted, she saved her boyfriend a few times and combining that with her incredible fighting skills might make people worry that she's going to be another girl power character who will always pull through. But no. She doesn't. She was literally torn to pieces in one scene and had to be rescued (although it was pretty darn cool to see her continue fighting with only one arm and no other limbs) and the end of the movie, her attempt to save Hugo failed and he died. That scene made me cry despite some of the more corny scenes used to build their relationship, such as when she literally offered him her heart. I think part of what sold it for me was that Hugo's nickname for her, "Ali", is not only a cute nickname on its own but is also the nickname of a character I've written. It was such a sweet romance between two teenagers that I felt genuinely sad when he fell to his death.

Hugo was pretty likeable despite his tendency to rip cyborgs apart to harvest their body parts. He backs out of this when he falls for Alita and I liked his black skinned friend, Tanji because although he thought Hugo was wussing out and even fought him about it, he ultimately proved himself a true friend by sacrificing his life to give Hugo time to escape from Zapan. Speaking of Zapan, there wasn't much to him aside from him being incredibly vain but Alita never took him too seriously, handing his ass to him on a plate, slicing off part of his pretty boy face with his own sword and keeping said sword for herself because he was unworthy of having it.

Grewishka was given a bit more of a backstory as we learn that he was "adopted" by Nova in a perverted reflection of Alita's adoption by Ido. They were even picked up in a scrapyard but while Alita is found in a setting sun at the beginning of the movie, Grewishka shows her that he was discovered in darkness beneath Iron City. Also, while Ido treats Alita like his own daughter, Nova, through his puppet Vector, treats Grewishka as nothing more than a weapon. Nova comes across as an otherworldly presence in this movie, amplified by the eerie blue eyes that appear whenever he's possessing Vector, but he appears briefly as a physical person at the end of the film. He's a mad scientist, not a god, but you'd be forgiven for thinking that some kind of evil spirit is possessing Vector because that's how it comes across.

Christoph Waltz did a great job as Ido and although I was personally more invested in the romance, he's given time to shine as Alita's adopted father. The decision to have him name Alita after his murdered daughter instead of his cat was a welcome change as it adds a lot more weight. Although it would have been interesting to explore the more creepy relationship he and Alita had in the manga, that would have made the movie less accessible for larger audiences and needed more time to be fleshed out so just showing a father and daughter relationship was the right decision. However, the weapon Ido uses as a Hunter Warrior seems too bulky for him to swing around with great precision, a stark contrast to Alita's agile and precise movements.

Then there's Jennifer Connelly, who's still looking pretty damn good for her age. While Doctor Chiren isn't a particularly big character, there's enough development for her to make her seem human without taking attention away from Alita. Indeed, Chiren's last few scenes show that, deep down, she's still a mother but she forgot that after she lost her child. With an imposter AKA Alita taking over the replacement body her ex-husband made for their daughter, she understandably wasn't happy about it but in the end, her maternal instincts came through and she decided that ascending to the sky city of Zylem wasn't worth the price. Unfortunately for her, she backed out of the deal too late, resulting in a rather gruesome fate which I won't spoil here.

And of course, as expected from a James Cameron movie, the special effects are spectacular. Alita's motion capture combined with Rosa Salazar's performance is so well done that Alita's cyborg body felt like it actually existed in this reality. Her big CGI eyes never bothered me, though granted, I have a thing for big, expressive eyes. I was actually more unsettled by the blue eyes Vector had whenever Nova took control of him. Alita gets flashes of her past in the movie and it's strongly implied that she was created for the specific purpose of destroying Nova, who is said to be immortal, but there's still enough left unexplained to keep him a mysterious being. In fact, he's so mysterious that they got a big name to play him and didn't advertise the actor in the marketing or even put his name in the credits. That's how close they kept this secret to the chest.

The only criticisms I have of this film are that Nova hasn't been dealt with, which means it relies on at least one sequel to finish the story, and the ending was rushed. You barely have time to absorb Hugo's death before Alita is pointing the Damascus Blade up at Zalem. Aside from that though, I can't find anything wrong with it. They managed to squeeze a lot of story into just over two hours and the only time I felt like it went too fast was at the very end. Any other flaws I tried to complain about were just projections I put on the movie instead of problems with the film itself. Nitpickers might complain about corny dialogue but that complaint holds no weight because the movie is aware of the corny moments and uses them to its advantage. The most notable example is after Alita's speech to the Hunter Warriors. They subvert the cliche of having the main character inspire people with a speech and force Alita to actually show the Hunter Warriors what she's made of. Another example is when Alita breaks the tension after offering her heart to Hugo and the two of them chuckle about how "intense" the scene was.

We need a sequel. Robert Rodriguez is primed and ready, Rosa Salazar would no doubt be ecstatic to continue playing Alita and although James Cameron often takes years to get movies done, he's not concerned about pleasing corrupt and greedy executives and is always pushing himself to put out high quality work. All they need is the money to fund it. Ignore the critics. They're just afraid that this movie will take attention away from Captain Marvel. Support this movie because unlike Captain Marvel, it deserves every single penny you spend on it.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)

Tom Cruise has still got it

[7/10 · 17 August 2018]

At 56 years of age, Tom Cruise is still showing no signs of slowing down. Whether he's throwing himself out of windows, clinging to the underside of a helicopter or climbing a sheer rock face, he still thrives on stunts and adrenaline rushes as much as he did when he started this series 22 years ago. On top of that, he has proven himself to be a capable actor as well as a great stuntman. I noticed this when Ethan was talking to his ex-wife's new husband and he just made up an alias on the spot. Tom Cruise has a reputation for playing characters that are similar - Ethan Hunt, Jack Reacher, William Cage (although the latter character differentiates himself from Reacher and Hunt by starting as a coward) - and because of that I was kind of expecting him to just be Tom Cruise but I underestimated him. He interacted with Julia's new husband in a way that made Ethan seem comfortable in the guy's presence, despite having only just received a double whammy by learning Julia was there and that she'd gotten remarried. That scene was enough to show me that Cruise is more than just a crazy thrill seeker. I'm not a Mission Impossible fan or even a particularly big Tom Cruise fan so I just went into this movie expecting action, gun fights, car and motorbike chases and Cruise doing potentially life threatening stunts. We get plenty of that, which I think is all anyone really wants out of these movies, but Cruise goes that extra mile to actually make a decent movie in general rather than one that relies solely on the action scenes and his willingness to put himself in danger. The guy is clearly very passionate and devoted to this series and doesn't let the effects of middle age interfere with his work.

Darkest Hour (2017)

Gary Oldman resurrects Winston Churchill

[9/10 · 18 January 2018]

Gary Oldman lived and breathed Winston Churchill and his charisma carried the entire movie. This was such a monumental time in Churchill's life, yet it took place over less than two weeks. At first glance, one might think that the title was referring to England's darkest hour, but the subtext of the film is that it was actually showing Churchill's darkest hour, where he was riddled with self-doubt as well as opposition from people who should have been his allies. Despite his belief that surrendering to Hitler would only make things worse, people were dying day after day and it seemed that the only option that wouldn't result in annihilation was to negotiate with the tyrant. In the end though, it wasn't the pressure of politicians or concern over his reputation that caused Churchill to choose to keep fighting against overwhelming odds. It was the opinions of ordinary people. Which brings me to my favourite scene in the movie. I don't know if it's historically accurate or not, but the scene on the train shows us what a kind-hearted, funny, likeable and humble guy Churchill was. He joked around with normal people whilst also asking for their advice, even to the point where he treated a little girl as though her opinion held weight. As Sirius Black once said (not in the Harry Potter movies unfortunately, only the books, but this is a nod to another of Gary Oldman's characters) "If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals". Churchill treated his inferiors with just as much respect as he would treat the King of England. He had his flaws, such as his habit of mumbling and short temper, but he had the spirit of a man who believed not only in freedom, but in equality. Churchill's speech at the end of the movie, though I can't quote it line for line, was incredibly passionate as he let go of his insecurities and forged ahead in his quest to defeat Hitler and establish himself as one of the greatest leaders England has ever seen. Not for himself, not for his reputation - hell if England lost the war, his reputation (which already had some stains) would be destroyed and Churchill knew that - but for the freedom of his country.

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

A perfectionist dealing with imperfection

[7/10 · 2 December 2017]

I'm referring to both myself and Kenneth Branagh's character, Hercule Poirot, in the title. This isn't a perfect movie - then again very few, if any movies are - but it's far, FAR better than The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi combined. I'll get into why I'm comparing it to those train-wrecks later. First, I should say that I haven't read Agatha Christie's novel so I don't know how faithful this is. The only version of this story I've seen was from Doctor Who, and that version took place in the future, in space, and had a Mummy who lets you live for 66 seconds when you see it.

With my ignorance of source material out of the way, let's get to the actual review. The most interesting character in the movie is Hercule Poirot, which works fine since he's the lead. A brilliant detective (albeit a somewhat egotistical one, as he proclaims himself "the best detective in the world") and a perfectionist through and through, right down to requesting that people straighten their ties, his character arc is about realizing that justice and injustice can depend on people's points of view, and that not everybody can be separated into the categories of good and bad. There are shades of grey, which throws his view of perfection, be it perfect innocence or perfect villainy, into question. Kenneth Branagh did a good job at directing the movie, but it might have been better if he'd let someone else do that, because he stood out more as an actor than a director. His ridiculous mustache and strange accent were somewhere between charming and annoying but what made him likable to me were his perfectionist tendencies, as I'm a perfectionist myself.

Unfortunately, since the movie has to juggle so many characters, some performers don't get the amount of screen-time that they deserve. Branagh seemed so focused on crafting the film around his own performance that he forgot to give his co-stars time to shine. For example, the legendary actress Judi Dench has played many different roles such as Queen Victoria and Lady MacBeth and holds a special place in my memory as M from James Bond, but she wasn't given much to do in this movie. Penelope Cruz's character also receives little attention although she has enough time to talk about Lucifer and God. Even Michelle Pfeiffer, who looks incredible for a woman who's rapidly approaching her sixtieth birthday (she's well over twice my age but she's somehow managed to stay attractive), didn't leave much of an impression, for better or worse. With so many characters fighting for screen-time, it's hard to become memorable.

However two performers outside of Branagh did manage to be memorable, one in a good way and one in a not-so-good way. Despite looking at the cast before I entered the movie, I didn't recognize Johnny Depp at all whilst he was playing Edward Ratchett. He didn't have much screen-time but in the time that he had, he was sleazy and clearly had a shady past, but fear motivated him to carry a gun wherever he went and request Poirot's help, showing that he was still human. I literally never recognized him as the same man who brought us the eccentric Jack Sparrow, perhaps because he looked presentable instead of a drunken mess. It seems to me that Johnny Depp has a rather forgettable face but that works in his favour because it allows him to get as close to literally disappearing into his characters as a live-action actor can get.

Now let's get to why I mentioned The Force Awakens. Daisy Ridley is annoying. Her voice sticks out like a sore thumb and she doesn't seem to be very bright, but the most annoying part... was that she actually wasn't that bad in this film. After her lousy performance in The Force Awakens, I was ready to tear this performance apart, but she toned down the over-the-top expressions and even her irritating voice suited Mary much more than Rey. One can always tell it's her voice and it doesn't blend in, but due to the time period and her character's social class, it doesn't sound nearly as out of place as it did on Rey. Ridley is just a pretty face with little brainpower behind it, but she's better here than she was in both of her Star Wars movies put together, which plays into my understanding of Poirot's story arc. Just as he must come to terms with how good and bad, as well as justice and injustice, are not black and white, I must come to terms with the fact that Daisy Ridley's not a terrible actress and my judgment isn't always perfect. It seems that supporting characters are more suitable for her, which emphasizes how poorly cast and directed she was in The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. It also proves that, for all his faults, Kenneth Branagh is a far better director than Jar Jar Abrams or Ruin Johnson (pardon me for the immature name calling but frankly, those two hacks deserve it).

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

A strong film

[8/10 · 14 October 2017]

If there's one thing The Force Awakens has taught me, it's that critics are not always reliable. Also shortly before I saw this movie, I saw it advertised on YouTube with the incredibly pretentious line "The critics have spoken". Considering most of them couldn't recognize a piece of crap like TFA when it smacked them in the face, I would take most of their reviews with a healthy pinch of salt.

But does my lack of faith in critics mean they were wrong about this movie? Not necessarily. Having never seen the first Blade Runner, I can't comment on this as a sequel, only as a standalone film. And as a standalone film, I'd give it at least 8 out of 10. It didn't blow me away but at the same time, I couldn't find many problems with it. There were a lot of unanswered questions so it kind of feels like it's setting up a sequel - something that most Hollywood movies do this days which can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the film and franchise - but it can also work on its own if you just take it as K's story rather than thinking about how it affects the overall franchise. Fortunately, this is easy to do since he's the lead.

Ryan Gosling delivered a strong performance but there were times where I felt he was being a little too subdued. I understand that was part of the character as K, or Joe as he was later called, wasn't a very emotional man but it also made his burst of emotion when he was with Dr Stelline feel a little out of place. Not bad but I felt like it didn't have the necessary build-up of repressed emotion to result in that reaction. Ironically, the opposite occurred when his holographic wife/girlfriend died. If he was ever going to have a burst of emotion, it should have been in that scene which could have been the most heart-breaking scene in the movie. Unfortunately, it was glanced over too quickly and Gosling didn't look nearly as pained by it as Harrison Ford looked when Rick Deckard was talking with Nianda Wallace, played by Jared Leto (who didn't have much screen-time but is very different in this movie than he was in Suicide Squad so the guy can act with the right direction), about his dead lover.

Speaking of Harrison Ford, he was in less than half the movie so I spent a good chunk of it waiting for him to show up. When he finally did, he quickly overshadowed Gosling for the rest of the film. My favourite scene was Deckard's talk with Wallace. Deckard only had a handful of lines in that scene but I just had to look at his face to know how much the death of his lover and loss of his children pained him. He also had one of the greatest lines in the film "Sometimes, in order to love someone, you have to be a stranger" explaining why he hid his children rather than raising them himself. Finally, I liked his final scene where he simply put his hand on the glass as his long lost daughter approached him. No words were needed. They just let the moment speak for itself.

I also liked Robin Wright's character, Lt Joshi. I don't think I've ever seen Wright in a movie before and if I have, she didn't leave much of an impression but she was likable enough to make me wish that she hadn't been killed off.

Overall this is a strong movie. It's well written, directed and acted, particularly by Harrison Ford despite him not having as much screen-time as you might expect, but not quite good enough to make me a Blade Runner fan. However, I expect those of you who are fans will love it.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)

Crazy, over-the-top and fun

[7/10 · 30 September 2017]

It's clear that Colin Firth, Taron Egerton, Mark Strong, Channing Tatum, Pedro Pascal, Elton John and Julianne Moore were all having the time of their lives filming this. The movie's over-the-top style, which did well at capturing the spirit of the first film, allowed them all to have fun with their characters. However, when a more serious scene presented itself, like when Merlin had to sacrifice himself or when Harry revealed that he had felt like he was leaving nothing behind when Valentine shot him in the previous film, they still brought the heart and emotional weight needed to convey what the characters were going through. From a character standpoint, my favourite scene was when Eggsy managed to remind Harry of who he was. That was a very touching scene that brought a smile to my face and showed that, while this film is mostly just meant to be an over-the-top action comedy, it still knew when to tone it down and allow us to appreciate the bonds between the characters.

I thought bringing Colin Firth back was a bit risky since Harry got shot in the head in the first film but their explanation for the healing of his head wound, although rushed, was at least brought back again later rather than just shoved into the film for convenience and then abandoned. Too bad it was applied to one of the films villains. What did slightly bother me about Harry's resurrection is how and why Halle Berry's character (by the way, that woman looks damn good for her age) even found and bothered to bring him back in the first place. But overall, it doesn't matter. Colin Firth brought back the dashing Kingsman agent but added a layer of vulnerability to him that we didn't see in the previous film.

Julianne Moore, another woman who is aging well, is mostly known for her skills as a dramatic actress but this movie showed that she can also be balls to the wall psychotic. Poppy Adams was a complete psychopath who could do terrible things with a smile on her face and was clearly having tremendous fun being the villain. I also liked the jab they made to corrupt politicians with the scumbag president.

Overall, this is a good sequel. Not perfect but clearly the performers were enjoying themselves so it's easy to enjoy it along with them.

Bambi II (2006 Video)

A beautiful story of Father and Son

[9/10 · 16 July 2017]

This movie is one of the very few Disney sequels that manages to be on par with the original. Clearly the people working on it did everything they could to capture the spirit of the original Bambi and for the most part, they succeeded.

The greatest part of this movie was Patrick Stewart as the Great Prince of the Forest. In the first movie, the Great Prince was merely a role model and we never knew much about him but this movie fleshes him out and creates a very likable but not flawless character. And they couldn't have chosen a better actor to replace the late Fred Shields. I felt like this was more the Great Prince's movie than Bambi's, partially because his character was a mystery for 64 years so the people working on this film had to be careful with how they handled him. Personally, I think they handled him extremely well. In the original movie we only have Bambi's mother's word that he's brave and wise but in this movie we actually see his bravery when he defends Bambi from a pack of dogs and hear some of his wisdom such as "feel the forest". However, they also give him a playful side and show that he's struggling to be a good parent and sometimes makes mistakes, such as trying to send Bambi to live with someone else.

Although Patrick Stewart stole the show, Alexander Gould did a great job as Bambi. The most powerful scene in the movie was when the Great Prince found Bambi at the bottom of the cliff after he defeated the last of the dogs. Anyone who's seen the original Bambi knew that he would survive and the writers knew that they knew, but there was one very simple word that made that scene stand out.

Dad.

Until that scene, Bambi never referred to the Great Prince as dad whilst in his presence. He said it while he was with his friends but seemed intimidated by the idea of using such an intimate and personal title to the Great Prince's face, so instead he referred to him as "sir". It's clear that the writers were saving "Dad" specifically for that moment, which is the moment where Bambi fully overcomes his insecurities about being a coward and disappointing the leader of the forest and just sees the Great Prince as his dad. And I must give kudos to Gould for the delivery of that line. Yes, it's only one syllable and anyone can say it easily, but Gould not only nailed the grogginess Bambi was feeling as he regained consciousness but also the love he felt for his father, despite the fight they had earlier in the movie. After that scene, Bambi continued to refer to the Great Prince as dad and the Great Prince realized that he couldn't send him away to live with anyone else, showing that they had both realized how much they loved each other. This also fits in nicely with the first film as the Great Prince went out of his way to find Bambi in the forest fire and lead him to safety. Now we know that he didn't just do it because Bambi was his heir but because he genuinely loved him.

Another thing I should point out is that the art is fantastic and looks just like the original film. Overall, this is almost certainly the greatest of all the Disney sequels.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)

Funny and touching but very flawed

[6/10 · 10 June 2017]

This film has a lot of problems but it still managed to make me shed a couple of tears. Let's get the problems out of the way first. The script was a mess. Some scenes were pointless, such as when Jack spoke to that pirate in prison as he was being dragged to the gallows, others were rushed or had no satisfactory build-up, such as when Barbosa realized Carina was his daughter and they stuffed all the build-up, aside from Carina mentioning that her father left her the diary and ruby, into that one scene, and overall the writers didn't seem to know how to make the story flow properly. Also I didn't like Salazar and right from his first line "Death" I knew he wasn't going to be as good as past Pirates of the Caribbean villains. Despite being an important character in the story, he left very little impact on me.

Carina could have been a great character - witch, scientist, astronomer - but unfortunately Kaya Scodelario wasn't the right actress to bring her to life. She wasn't bad and some of her banter with Jack Sparrow was pretty entertaining, especially in the scene where they were about to be executed, but she didn't stand out much. I did like it when she told Salazar's crew to "piss off" though. Scodelario got the feisty part of Carina's character down well but aside from that, there wasn't much to her. Henry Turner was a pretty dull character as he was basically just Will Turner all over again, having very little to distinguish him from his father. Also I've noticed that Brenton Thwaites isn't good at creating chemistry with the actresses he works with. This was also a problem in Maleficent where he showed no chemistry with Elle Fanning.

Okay now let's get to the great stuff. Johnny Depp never disappoints as the eccentric Jack Sparrow and just like the past Pirates of the Caribbean movies, his comedic timing and delivery provided a lot of humour. However, I am going to have to bring up the sloppy writing again because Jack would never give up his compass. I did like learning how he got his name though. Also I liked the scene when he threw his sword to Hector Barbosa while they were clinging on to the anchor. That part told me that despite their very turbulent relationship, Jack considered Barbosa to be his friend in a strange kind of way.

As great as Johnny was however, it was Geoffrey Rush who stole the show in this movie, conveying facets of Barbosa's character that we never saw in the other films. For one thing, this is the first time I can remember Barbosa showing fear. When Salazar's ship crushed the English ship and Barbosa ordered his crew to prepare for battle, there was something in his voice that told me Barbosa was actually frightened at that point. I was also touched when he called Carina "Treasure" and upset when he sacrificed his life for her. Barbosa had finally found someone worth dying for and I was sad to see him go but it was a beautiful and touching swansong which made me shed a tear as Jack, Carina and the others mourned his passing.

They also brought back Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightley but their roles in this movie were only cameos and Kiera didn't even get a line. However, I'm actually fine with that. Will and Elizabeth's story was all but finished in At Worlds End so all they really needed was their happily ever after and that's exactly what they got. I shed my second tear during their reunion before laughing at Jack's disgusted reaction as he watched them through his telescope. That one scene lives up to the "funny and touching" part of my title perfectly.

The movie as a whole isn't great, despite Geoffrey Rush's brilliant performance, but it had enough going for it to make it enjoyable. It was carried by Geoffrey, Johnny and a healthy dose of nostalgia and unlike other movies that rely on nostalgia (such as The Force Awakens) it didn't betray or tarnish the legacy of the previous movies. Despite it's flaws, this was a decent film.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

Okay

[6/10 · 22 December 2016]

As someone who watches films more to review them than enjoy them - which is more of a curse than a blessing, I might add - I think this was okay. Not as good as the main Harry Potter series but decent. I liked the throw-backs - or throw-forwards, since it's a prequel - to the other movies and, as befitting for such a film, there was a good variety of magical creatures. Yeah, I could tell they were CGI as were most, if not all of the other effects, but I didn't mind.

However, none of the characters really interested me, aside from perhaps Credence and Gellert Grindlewald but in the latter's case, that's only because of what I know about him from the books. I don't really remember much about the other characters and sort of wish Dumbledore had appeared, especially since in the books, it was said that he personally defeated Grindlewald. However the greatest duel in the history of the wizarding world is probably better left to the imagination and on top of that, Grindlewald was confident that the authorities wouldn't be able to hold him for long. No doubt, he escaped later. I also like that he fought several Aurors simultaneously and was winning easily until one of Newt's Magical Creatures attacked him from behind. He's not as powerful as Voldemort but I actually wouldn't have been surprised if he defeated the entire group of Aurors single-handed if he wasn't hit by that sneak attack.

Eddie Redmayne was good but I wasn't very interested in Newt's character. The only thing about him that stood out to me was when he commented "I find that worrying means you suffer twice". Say what you will about the rest of the dialogue, but that was a good line. Maybe they should have put Hagrid in the leading role since not only is he more interesting but finding and befriending Magical Beasts, especially dangerous ones, was something he was very good at and he would give us a stronger link back to the main series. However it's clear that this film was trying to be its own thing and expand the magical world and it does a decent job at that, despite it's flaws in many other areas, particularly characterization. The performers were okay but none of the characters were written with interesting personalities, except perhaps Credence.

I thought the little girl was going to be the Obscurus so it was a bit surprising to find out it was her brother instead. I see Credence's suppression of magic as a warning about suppressing your thoughts and feelings. You have to find some kind of outlet for them or else the consequences could be devastating. My outlet for thoughts and feelings is writing them down. Credence wasn't really evil, he was a product of his environment and the Obscurus developed because he had to constantly suppress his powers, to the point where even Grindlewald thought he was a Squib. After years of abuse and suppressing his abilities, it's no wonder the guy went on a rampage. Even so, he didn't deserve to die.

I also liked that it was kind of left to interpretation about whether the "non-mag" really lost his memory. When the woman kissed him, she was holding her wand and it might have been my imagination, but I'm pretty sure there was a barrier over them to block the memory-erasing rain. It's also possible that the kiss included a subtle spell to give him his memories back. Whether he remembered her or fell in love with her all over again when she visits him at the end is also left to interpretation. I like films that don't spell things out for the audience and leave us to make up our own minds.

Overall, this is not a great movie but it's not bad either. It pretty much just gives us what it promised so at least it's not false marketing (unlike the Star Wars "sequel" The Force Awakens) There's a few throw-backs/throw-forwards to the Harry Potter films, a message about preserving the lives of animals and the magical creatures, while obviously CGI, still include some decent designs and at least one of them even had some personality. I especially liked design of the four winged eagle that created the memory erasing rain and the affectionate little plant-like creature who was constantly clinging to Newt.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)

Not terrible

[4/10 · 28 October 2016]

This is an okay action film but there's very little to it aside from that. The acting was average. Nobody was terrible but nobody was particularly good either. Tom Cruise and Cobie Smulders were pretty bland. Danika Yarosh was a bit more interesting because she showed more variety in her expressions but she still wasn't very good. Also Yarosh looks a bit too old to be playing a fifteen year old. However, I did like Jack's relationship with Samantha. There wasn't a great amount of time devoted to their relationships development but I thought some of the scenes they had, particularly at the end, were quite sweet and even found myself feeling mildly concerned when Samantha was in peril. If she had actually been killed, this movie could have been more than just a bland action film, but as it is, it has nothing that makes it stand out.

Jane Got a Gun (2015)

Ewan and Natalie share a film for the first time since Star Wars; too bad it was mediocre

[3/10 · 8 October 2016]

I literally didn't recognize Ewan McGregor throughout the entire film. I didn't know which of the outlaws was John Bishop until I looked it up on the internet later. Sadly, that's not a compliment to Ewan's acting but simply a note of how much he's changed since Revenge of the Sith. He's a talented actor - I think he actually surpassed Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi - but John Bishop didn't stand out as a character. The only thing I can remember about him is that he never killed children. That showed a hint of honour, which is good, but apart from that, there was nothing notable about the character. I couldn't even tell which villain was which because on the back of my DVD case it said Ewan was playing a guy called Colin. I kept waiting for someone to call him Colin so that I could know that the guy playing him was one of the three greatest actors in the Star Wars prequels, the other two being Christopher Lee and Samuel L Jackson.

As someone who actually liked the Star Wars prequels, even though I know they're flawed, I feel like Natalie Portman wasn't as good in this film. For example, when she found out that her daughter was presumed dead whilst Jane was a prostitute, she was way too over-the-top. Yes, I get it, Jane was upset that her daughter was presumed dead but good god, could she have opened her mouth any wider in that scene? When Padme found out about Anakin's crimes on Mustafar, she was just as distraught but she didn't look ridiculous. It doesn't help that the only reason Jane stood out at all in the film was because she was the only woman who had any real presence in the story. She wasn't a particularly interesting character.

The flashbacks were annoying too and it's partially because of them that the plot was so incoherent. Half the time, I didn't know what the hell was going on and only managed to make sense of it by reading a summary on the internet.

Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman have both done great work in the past, including Star Wars and I have no doubt that they will do great work in the future, but sadly I think this movie represents a low point in their careers.

Finding Dory (2016)

Not bad

[7/10 · 11 August 2016]

I find Dory rather annoying but endearing at the same time. In this film, she often remembers things that happened a long time ago, hence she specifically calls her memory problems SHORT-TERM memory loss. She never said anything, in this movie or the previous one, about long-term memory loss so remembering things that happened long ago makes sense to me.

What I like about Dory, despite her being annoying at times, is that she's a unique character. I've never seen another movie, apart from Finding Nemo, that deals with short-term memory loss and she has instincts and a way of getting herself out of trouble that make up for her disability. I may find Dory annoying but I haven't seen another characters like her. It's not that she's particularly complex as her personality revolves around her memory problem but she's different and that's enough to make me like her.

Sometimes this film makes fun of Dory's condition, as well as Destiny's sight problems, but it's supposed to be a funny film so it fits the tone. I can't speak for people who actually have these disabilities but personally, I don't think they were being too offensive with their humour. If anything, it's refreshing to see a film that's willing to take risks by using characters with disabilities.

With all that said, this falls short of being a great film. It was good but the story line is way too similar to the first film, which is one of the most common weaknesses you can find in a sequel, with a handful of exceptions like Kung Fu Panda 2 or the Toy Story movies. The only plot difference I noticed between this film and the first one is that while Nemo was the one who needed to BE found in the previous movie, Dory was the one DOING the finding in this one. However, I did like the way Dory's past was slowly revealed throughout the movie instead of just being shown at the beginning. It was a way of giving the audience an idea of what was going on in her head and what it's like to have memory problems.

Hank the octopus was likable enough, despite being a bit of a jerk but his motivations were never really explained, particularly when he changed his mind about not wanting to return to the sea. His decision to suddenly go back to the sea, despite being so determined to go to the safe place where tagged marine life goes didn't make any sense to me. However, I did like the way he moved around in places where Dory, Marlin, Nemo and the other fish characters couldn't and seeing an octopus drive a car was quite enjoyable. Due to my lack of knowledge about the species, I actually had no idea that octopuses had three hearts or could go invisible so those were interesting little things I learned from watching this film.

Marlin and Nemo are likable but neither of them are really interesting characters. I enjoyed the scene where they talked to the clam who was abandoned by his girlfriend though.

It was nice to see some of the other characters from the first film like Crush and Mr Ray but I wish Gill and the trio of sharks had appeared too.

Finally, they actually got Sigourney Weaver in on this project. Gotta give 'em credit for that. Although did they have to use her actual name? Why not just write a character for her like every other movie?

Me Before You (2016)

I had butterflies in my stomach and Emilia Clarke was not the woman who caused them

[7/10 · 2 July 2016]

I'm not a fan of Emilia Clarke or Sam Claflin. Don't get me wrong; they are talented performers, but I didn't watch the movie to see them. Jenna Coleman is the only woman, both in the acting world and in my own relatively boring life, who can make me feel scared, excited and nervous all at the same time. I think she had far too little screen time and Katrina's story was only very vaguely hinted at. Apparently, she has a son but they never explained who the father is or how she was coping and judging by how young Jenna looks (she's thirty but I think she looks at least five years younger), I wouldn't be surprised if Treena's son was the result of a teenage pregnancy. Assuming he actually was her son. Treena wanted to go back to college but that's only mentioned in one scene. Despite having too little screen time, Treena and Lou really did seem like sisters. It wasn't as good as Anna and Elsa's beautiful bond in Frozen but that was only because the story didn't give Treena enough attention.

The ending was sad but I knew Will was going to die before I even watched the movie. With that said, it does lead to questions about whether one should assist in a suicide and it was brave to tackle this controversial matter. Is it murder when one wants to die? I don't know and while Lou and Treena's mother stated that it basically was, that is just one woman's opinion. The film itself doesn't really say whether it's right or wrong. I also noticed something else, actually from a trailer before I even watched the film. Lou said she became a whole new person after meeting Will and her dad said that you can't change who people are. Some could see that as inconsistent writing, but when I think about it, I think it works because Lou and her dad are two different people with different points of view.

As someone who appreciates subtlety, I should also draw attention to the scene where Will's parents are discussing his condition while Lou is listening. Something about the way Charles Dance spoke and held himself told me that Will's dad knew that Lou was listening. Charles himself must have known that Emilia was there but I think he was implying that his character heard Lou approaching and was intentionally giving her information about the situation, hoping that she could change Will's mind. Of course, Lou was eavesdropping but I like that it's left to the viewers interpretation about whether Will's dad knew she was there or not.

While it's a good movie, the only reason I wanted to watch it was because Jenna's in it. If it weren't for her, I wouldn't have written this review. I've had similar feelings about Doctor Who ever since the casting of the talented but overrated Peter Capaldi. Now that Jenna's left, Doctor Who has lost most of its charm for me. With that said, I mistook Treena for Clara at one point because Jenna can disappear into her character when she's playing Clara to the point where, for a moment, I saw Clara playing Treena instead of Jenna playing her. It was like Jenna was playing two characters simultaneously. The problem is that Treena was only in a handful of scenes, so I never really got to know her. She's supportive, playful, a little inappropriate at times ("Katrina Clarke!") and more intelligent than her sister but due to her lack of screen-time, I couldn't get to know her as intimately as I got to know Clara Oswald or Queen Victoria. I don't know what her quirks and flaws are. With that said, Jenna always has a powerful presence, despite her size. Heck, I think they should have switched her and Emilia's roles around because Jenna's the only reason I watched this movie in the first place. Also she's better at subtlety than Emilia but can still be happy, eccentric and energetic.

Despite this movies strengths, it also has weaknesses, the most notable one being that it's predictable and there are no real surprises. With that said, it's also passionate and heartfelt. Many movies are lazily put together these days - the film industry has been corrupted by money and seems more concerned about cash than making art - but this one actually had some effort put into it so it deserves to be acknowledged. Me Before You wasn't really my kind of movie but for what it was, it was good. If Jenna wasn't in it and I still watched it, I'd give it 6 but I'm giving it 7 because I freaking love her. And hate that I love her. And I'm driving myself mad over her.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Flawed but still great

[9/10 · 1 June 2016]

ROTS is my favourite of the live action Star Wars movies. Does that make it perfect? No. There's some bad dialogue ("It's only because I'm so in love", "No, it's because I'm so in love with you"), Sidious killed three Jedi Council Members far too easily and Dooku only had a cameo. However, unlike TFA, which was such a pitiful excuse for a Star Wars film that I think it wounded the franchise, ROTS can stand on its own and deserves its place in Star Wars canon.

First of all, the hatred for Hayden Christiansen is very unfair. People keep insulting his portrayal of Anakin Skywalker but I think he actually did a good job with what he had to work with. He spoke in a monotone but he was playing a man who was taught to control his feelings. One of Anakin's character flaws is that he doesn't understand the difference between controlling your feelings and suppressing them. To me, Hayden's monotone showed that Anakin was suppressing his emotions which was partially responsible for his fall. I see it as a warning about how dangerous it can be to suppress your feelings without giving them some kind of outlet. Furthermore, Hayden's actually rather good at acting with his expressions and body language. For example, when he was alone on Mustafar after killing the Separatists he didn't have a single line, but the tear track running down his face showed that part of Vader hated what he'd become.

Samuel L Jackson nailed the role of Mace Windu, particularly during his duel with Palpatine. The fight itself wasn't brilliant, particularly when Sidious killed the other three Jedi, but Samuel used some subtle gestures to make it work. For example, the biggest flaw in the fight, apart from the ignominious deaths of Agen Kolar, Saesee Tinn and Kit Fisto, was when Sidious held Mace at blade-point. One might wonder why he didn't strike Windu down then and there but to me, the way Windu spread his arms basically said "come and have a go", subtly undermining Sidious' confidence and causing him to hesitate. The confidence with which Mace held himself explains why Sidious didn't take advantage of the opening straight away. There's also that tiny gesture Mace gave to Anakin when he held Sidious at blade-point, subtly motioning for him to stand back. Mace also represents all the Jedi Order's flaws, making him an unlikable character despite Samuel's excellent portrayal of him. However, I think George Lucas had the right idea when he created a character who showed how corrupt and arrogant the Jedi had become and how they were partially responsible for their own destruction.

Ewan McGregor did an excellent job as Obi-Wan Kenobi. I mean no disrespect to the late Alec Guinness who was great in the Original Trilogy, but I think Ewan surpassed him. He was certainly better at lightsaber duelling and also nailed Obi-Wan's calm, confident presence. For example, when he jumped into the middle of a group of battle droids to confront General Grievous, he just had to say "Hello there" to show he meant business. He was also great at conveying Obi-Wan's anguish after defeating Vader on Mastafar.

Natalie Portman also did a great job as Padme, although the explanation for Padme's death was a bit weak, and Leia shouldn't have been able to remember her since she'd only just been born. Padme's most powerful line in the film was "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause". ROTS, AOTC and TPM taught me not to trust politics and I think that although the political scenes were dull, they were essential for the story. I'm grateful that George Lucas warned me about the dangers of politics. I think the weakest part of the Prequels is Padme's romance with Anakin but Natalie and Hayden both did a very good job in the scene where Anakin found out that Padme was pregnant.

Ian McDiarmid seemed to love being Darth Sidious. He could portray Sidious' subtle, calculating, manipulative side but when Sidious was able to use his powers openly, he absolutely loved it, behaving like a complete psycho. He was over-the-top when killing Mace and battling Yoda but he also did well in quieter moments.

Christopher Lee only had a cameo, but in the short time he had, he BECAME Count Dooku. He nailed Dooku's arrogance but when he was on his knees in front of Anakin, you can see the fear in his eyes. General Grievous was a much weaker villain. In addition to being a coward, Grievous didn't stand a chance against Obi-Wan in lightsaber combat, although he did nearly kill him in hand to hand combat, albeit only because of his mechanical body.

George Lucas isn't a great script writer but he possesses intelligence, creativity and passion and it clearly shows in this film. ROTS isn't a perfect film but I think the good things about it make up for its flaws.

Bridge of Spies (2015)

Not bad but a bit boring

[5/10 · 13 April 2016]

I'm not really a fan of Tom Hanks but in this film, he gave a good, albeit not brilliant, performance as Donovan, who suffered public scorn to do what he thought was right. I went into this film unaware that it was based on real live events but at the end, it showed some of Donovan's accomplishments after these events and I was impressed by the number of people he saved; 9703. However in the film, I wasn't hugely impressed by Tom Hanks, although he's by no means a bad actor. Supporting actor Mark Rylance was good, perhaps better than Hanks, and had some funny moments particularly with his main phrase "Would it help?"

I'm not entirely sure if this was meant to be a funny film but it got a laugh out of the audience a fair few times. There were scenes showing Abel's indifference to his situation and Donovan had some amusing lines here and there, but it seemed that the films tone was supposed to be a bit more serious and the humorous parts ruined that slightly. That said, the funny scenes weren't bad, but would probably have been better suited to a more humorous film.

There were some things I liked such as the friendship that developed between Abel and Donovan over the course of the film. Their relationship was the films strong point in my opinion. Another part that I liked was at the end, when Donovan was on the train and saw some people climbing over a fence. This links back to an earlier scene in Berlin, where some people were trying to scale a wall and got shot down, which is a good contrast between Berlin and New York.

I thought the judge was a jerk and it seemed to me that he was letting his prejudice against Abel influence his decision in the courtroom, so I was glad when Donovan managed to talk him out of giving Abel the death sentence. To me, the judges behavior showed that some people can't be trusted with power, but it was nice to see that he wasn't totally corrupt, so perhaps I misjudged him.

This film had a lot of talk about negotiation and politics and since I have little interest in either - largely because I don't trust politicians - it wasn't really my kind of movie. However, I wouldn't call it a bad film. Tom Hanks has some good speeches and there's a funny line here and there, so if you like movies about what goes on behind the scenes in a war, instead of focusing on shooting and explosions, you'll probably like this film. There is a bit of shooting and blowing things up - specifically a plane used to spy on the enemy - but it's kept to a minimum, focusing mainly on Donovan's struggle to help Abel.

How I Live Now (2013)

Impressive performances, imperfect storyline

[8/10 · 10 April 2016]

I've never seen Saoirse Ronan before but I was impressed by her performance in this film. I'd even rank her as one of the top three actresses aged 30 or younger, the other two being Jenna Coleman and Jennifer Lawrence. Actually, Saoirse reminded me of Jennifer because they look fairly similar (Jennifer's hotter though) and have similar acting styles. I've never read the novel so I can't compare it to this film, but it seemed to me that Saoirse was perfect for the role of Daisy. Daisy started off as being antisocial and a bit bitchy but despite her rudeness, I didn't dislike her and she developed into a much nicer person throughout the film. I thought her romance with Eddie was a bit rushed and nobody in the film even mentioned the incest going on between them, but overall Saoirse did an excellent job.

I also liked Piper, played by Harley Bird, although at times, I thought she put a bit too much emphasis on some of her lines. However, she has a considerable amount of talent which makes up for her inexperience. She did a great job of showing how a child would react in those circumstances and even though she was a bit whiny at times, I wasn't bothered because it was stated in the movie that it was part of her character's personality.

George MacKay and Tom Holland did good jobs as Piper's big brothers but didn't impress me as much as the girls. I also thought they didn't get enough focus. Although Daisy and Eddie were in love and Daisy warmed up to Isaac, I felt that her relationship with Piper is what carried the film. If not for the sisterly love between them, this movie would have been pretty weak. Daisy and Piper seemed more like sisters than cousins and I think their relationship was portrayed very well and became the heart and soul of the film.

I thought that the terrorist attacks and Daisy's romance with Eddie didn't get enough focus, even though I think they were supposed to be a central part of the story. However, it did show how far one can be willing to go to protect a loved one as Daisy committed murder and serious injury in order to protect Piper. Despite not seeing any battles or explosions, the film did show us the aftermath of these events by showing a pile of corpses and giving Eddie post traumatic stress disorder. I think it may have been going with the idea that some things are better left to the imagination, so I'll give the movie credit for that, but I think a bit more attention should have been given to why Daisy and Piper were taken away. When the soldiers arrived, I wasn't sure if they were taking the girls to safety or simply kidnapping them. Because of the lack of focus on the terrorism and romance, I think the script was a little weak and slightly unfocused but Saoirse and Harley's acting made up for the flaws in the storyline.

Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016)

Great film

[8/10 · 8 April 2016]

I think this film is as good as the first but not quite as good as the second. Nonetheless, it's still a great addition to the franchise and tied up the loose ends left by the previous movies. It feels like a good end to the Kung Fu Panda movies. A fourth movie would be nice, as long as the script is good, but if the writers can't come up with anything, they should still be proud to have ended the franchise on a high note.

I liked Kai, although he wasn't as good as Shen. While Shen was unique to the Kung Fu Panda franchise, oozing a deranged yet elegant intimidation with just the right sprinkling of humour, Kai shares similarities with Tai Lung, such as a degree of intimidation but just a little too much humour and a back-story with one of the franchise's mentors, in this case, Oogway. However, that doesn't make Kai a badly written character. His back-story with Oogway was good and he was portrayed as a guy who was previously brave and loyal but became twisted by his own greed. Furthermore, Kai is somewhat sympathetic because Oogway erased every trace of him apart from his own personal scroll about their relationship after sending him to the Spirit World, so it's understandable that he would be ticked off for having his legacy destroyed. He was too similar to Tai Lung to be a brilliant villain like Shen was but I think the writers and voice actor J.K. Simmons handled him pretty well despite that.

What I like about this film is that it touches on possibilities about what happens after we die. Not many films do that due to people's understandable fear of death. I originally interpreted the Spirit World as being the afterlife, which led to confusion about Kai's apparent destruction - if he's already dead, how could he die again? - until my mother mentioned the possibility that the Spirit World was actually Purgatory, in other words the place between life and death. It was shown to be possible to return from the Spirit World so it could be argued that anyone residing there isn't truly dead. Oogway's line "I live here" rather than "I reside here" lends weight to that theory as it implies that he's still attached to the mortal world. Like Po, Oogway could probably return to life if he wanted to but he was clearly content to stay in the Spirit World. However, when Kai exploded from the force of Po's chi, he was pushed beyond the boundary between life and death, ensuring he could never return to the mortal realm again.

I liked Oogway's scenes, although I wish he had a bit more screen time. I think he's a great character and his connection to Kai explains more about his long life. I also liked that both Oogway and Kai were connected to the very same Panda village where Li lived. One complaint I have is how did Tigress find the supposedly secret village? Li said that no non-Panda's were supposed to know where it was but Tigress got there before Kai, who visited the same village five hundred years ago. To be fair, Kai found the village by accident in a snowstorm five centuries earlier, so he may have had trouble remembering the way but even so, at least he had some idea of where he was going. I suppose Tigress could have tracked Po but I don't remember the previous films establishing her as a tracker, although maybe the writers assumed we would guess that from the fact that she's a feline.

Po, Shifu and the Furious Five were also done well, with Mantis and Crane even getting a scene to themselves. I liked the scene where Shifu, Tigress, Monkey and Viper fought Kai and the possessed Mantis and Crane. My favourite member of the Furious Five is Tigress, partially because she's voiced by the fantastic and beautiful Angelina Jolie, one of the greatest actresses alive. I liked seeing Tigress' maternal side, which is shown in the television series but hasn't been seen before in the movies. I'm glad that they maintained her friendship with Po without giving any indication that it could go further. If this were another franchise, chances are the writers would probably have the male main character and the powerful female character get together but here, Po and Tigress are more like brother and sister. Although Tigress is my favourite member of the Furious Five, I wish that Viper was given more screen time, as I think she's the most underrated of the group. Lucy Lui is also a great actress who wasn't given enough lines in this movie.

Po's dad Li is a likable character. I guessed that he was lying about knowing the chi practices used by his ancestors but unlike many "liar revealed" story lines, it's not too obvious that he's lying until the revelation scene. There are hints from his behavior but it's subtle and I like that. And of course, Li's just being a protective father. I like how he and Mr Ping bonded over the course of the movie and realized that they could both be father figures to Po. Mr Ping's concern that he might steal Po away from him was understandable since Li was Po's biological dad, but the two of them actually worked well together once Mr Ping got over his jealousy.

I wouldn't call it perfect but this is still a great movie and a worthy addition to the franchise. I don't feel that it's essential to add a fourth movie. The second movie basically confirmed that this movie was coming due to the cliffhanger with Li but in this film, everything has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. If they do make another film, they had better do it right because I don't want this franchise to get ruined just to make the people involved richer.

The Other Side of the Door (2016)

Scary

[7/10 · 6 March 2016]

This film was scary and had plenty of jump scares and creepy atmosphere but was also a bit rushed. Due to lack of knowledge about what Oliver was like when he was alive, it's hard to feel upset about his death. I think the film would have been more powerful if we knew what he was like before he died and became evil. The acting was good, but I've seen better. I've never seen Sarah Wayne Callies before but although she wasn't exceptional, she did a pretty good job. I wasn't too impressed with Jeremy Sisto - he was okay but nothing special - and Suchitra Pillai was a bit creepy at first. In the beginning, I was slightly worried that she might turn out to be a villain. Sofia Rosinsky was bland but to be fair, she's just a kid. I think she did the scenes where Oliver possessed Lucy reasonably well but although she has some talent, her lack of experience really shows. If Sofia wants to stand out as an actress, she's got a long way to go but she's not bad.

The ending was good because it implied that history was about to repeat itself. Overall it was a decent horror film, but far from perfect.

Avatar (2009)

A masterpiece

[10/10 · 17 January 2016]

I haven't watched Avatar for a while, but I used to watch it frequently and until Disney's Frozen came out, it was my favourite movie. I loved the original version but personally I think you should watch the extended edition to truly appreciate this extraordinary movie.

James Cameron certainly knew what he was doing when he created this film and put his all into the project. All the performers did great work, with fantastic performances from Sigourney Weaver, Zoey Saldana, Sam Worthington, Michelle Rodriguez, Stephan Lang and Giovanni Ribishi.

Sigourney Weaver, who in my eyes is one of the greatest actresses I've ever seen - she's definitely in the top ten, perhaps even top five - made Grace Augustine a snarky, feisty and rather rude woman who was hiding a loving, maternal side as well as a great deal of emotional pain, particularly in regards to the destruction of her school. By the way, if you want to fully appreciate Sigourney's performance in this movie, you need to see Grace's discussion with Jake about the school and that is only shown in the special edition.

I've seen Sam Worthington in Clash of the Titans and Wrath of the Titans, but he was at his finest in Avatar, making Jake Sully into a sarcastic and fierce warrior who also had a childish wonder for the world around him. You also see Jake develop throughout the movie. Initially he seems like a "dumb grunt" but grows into a charismatic leader. His love for Neytiri felt very genuine, thanks to the excellent chemistry between Sam and Zoey.

I wouldn't put Zoey Saldana as high as Sigourney Weaver on my list of most talented actresses, but she still did impressive work as the feisty Neytiri. If I had to criticize her, I'd say she was just a little over-the-top when Neytiri found out that Jake was a spy and when she was crying over her father. However to be fair, Neytiri was devastated in both of those scenes and it's perfectly in character for her to lash out when she's angry or distraught, so it was still a great performance. Despite being slightly over-the-top in those two scenes, Zoey proved that she is still capable of subtlety and I'm a guy who appreciates subtlety in a performance. For example there was Neytiri's little disapproving glance at Tsu'tey when Jake was about to catch his Ikran, her playful smile when Jake deliberately flew too close to her or the vulnerable look in her eyes when Jake acknowledged that Peyral was a good hunter. Regardless of whether Zoey's as good as Sigourney or not, she still made Neytiri my favourite character in the entire movie.

Giovanni Ribishi also did a great job by making Parker Selfridge a greedy but conflicted man whose greed was constantly warring with his moral guidelines. He was clearly disturbed by the destruction of the Na'vi's home and despite his assertion that they were "savages", it's obvious that he didn't really want to go to war with them.

The true villain of this story is without doubt Colonel Miles Quaritch. He was little more than an evil psychopath, who literally drank coffee whilst destroying an entire clan's home. Although not a deep character, Stephan Lang's performance was so strong that the simplicity of Quaritch doesn't really matter to me.

I haven't seen many movies starring Michelle Rodriguez - actually I'm not sure if I've seen her in any films outside of Avatar - but she was an excellent choice to play Trudy Chacon. From what I know of her, Michelle is most comfortable in the role of tough and feisty women so she fitted Trudy's character very well.

Those six were the greatest performances in the movie but I'll also give credit to CCH Pounder, Wes Studi, Laz Alonso and Joel David Moore; all of them did great jobs. Dileep Rao and Matt Gerald were rather forgettable but to be fair, their roles were too small for us to really see how skilled they are. However out of the two of them, Matt put on a better performance with what he had to work with.

The storyline is rather simple - my younger brother has described it as basically Pocahontas with blue aliens - but that in no way cheapens the experience. Sometimes a simple storyline is the greatest storyline. It depends on how it's told and this story is told extremely well so the predictability of the plot didn't bother me. Furthermore quite a few likable and/or important characters die in this film, showing that Cameron is not afraid to show the brutal reality of war.

Pandora is a beautiful moon - for those of you thinking it's a planet, believe it or not it's actually a moon despite being close to the size of Earth - and is alive with unique wildlife and plants. James Cameron did an excellent job of creating an entire new world. Aside from the Na'vi, my favourite aliens are the Toruk and Ikran.

Another thing to mention is that the special effects are magnificent. Admittedly, I'm no expert on special effects but the Na'vi, animals and plants all look incredibly realistic. If I'm not mistaken, Cameron had ideas for this film about a decade before it came out but waited until technology was more advanced in order to make it as realistic as possible. That was a wise decision and another sign of the passion and dedication he had for this movie.

This movie is probably James Cameron's greatest work since Titanic, perhaps even the greatest in his entire career. He has confirmed a sequel and I hope he puts as much effort into that as he has into this and creates another masterpiece. Only time will tell.