OlieRendch Reviews

Justice League (2017)

A fluff movie with no depth but entertaining nonetheless

[7/10 · 1 December 2017]

So Justice League, DC's big superhero team-up movie. The franchise has had major ups and downs in only four years so where does this one fit in?

I'll start with the overall tone of the movie. After the depressing darkness of Batman V Superman, Wonder Woman and had a lighter tone to it; now I'm not saying it's gone all light & happy and copying Marvel but I mean they literally added colors to the screen and moments that made you smile and feel like justice was prevailing. So with that, I'll move onto the characters. who certainly added to my personal enjoyment of the film. this film took some cues from

I really enjoyed the League themselves. Bruce Wayne/Batman has remained largely the same since BvS but seeing him here just felt different somehow, one of my favorite moments of the entire film is with him on a rooftop near the beginning; it felt really comic-booky and how I perceive Batman as a character so I really enjoyed that. Wonder Woman again is a joy to watch and continues to be a highlight of all of the films she's in; her wise and mother-like attitude is really nice to see in this threatening universe. The new members I really did enjoy too. The Flash, while not always funny, was entertaining quite a bit in both his powers and story-arc. Cyborg I thought was going to be really broody and boring the whole time, and while he is a serious character, his struggle with his situation and the power-set that he has was really engaging and unexpected. Aquaman was a really fun-loving brawler kind of guy and although I enjoyed his presence I hope more of his character is fleshed out in his upcoming solo film.

Story-wise, Justice League is not deep or complex, and not too surprising. I think after the tangled mess of BvS, they took a safe route and a bit of a breather with the simpleness of the plot. I didn't mind that at all and welcomed it but I know many will not enjoy the "nothingness" of the story. Part of that has to do with the villain and to be honest, he's not a deeply developed character; another big CGI guy with an army of faceless expendable drones makes for uninteresting stakes. One aspect of the film does involve Superman though, and that's not a spoiler as he's in the trailers and it's no secret. Now I thought his initial return in the film was quite unsatisfactory and it definitely felt like some things had been cut but as the film went on I started to really enjoy seeing him again, especially towards the end. I'd say as far as overall plot goes, it's fairly generic but Zack Snyder's directing does make some interesting visuals along the way.

Another negative I'll point out is the script. Now I know the unfortunate circumstances of why Joss Whedon was brought in to finish the movie and I'm glad he could, but some of the dialogue he injected just did not fit with the characters they were given to. Some of it worked, and I'm convinced Whedon did some good stuff in this but not all of it gelled for me.

In the end, I'd say I personally enjoyed Justice League a lot more than I was expecting but it is ultimately a fluff movie with not much depth and some terrible special effects during the reshoots.

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Really funny if sometimes to its detriment, but certainly had me laughing.

[7/10 · 2 November 2017]

The Thor films have been kind of average so far; can a quirky New Zealander change all that?

Thor: Ragnarok is the third film in its own series and Thor's fifth appearance in the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole. This time it's directed by Taika Watiti and also features the Hulk as a main character. For starters I'd like to say I love Taikia's work; his film Hunt for the Wilderpeople is hilarious to me and any interview you watch of his is a joy to behold. He has a very unique style of film so I can see why Marvel chose him to inject some energy and humor into this series. And he does do that. Ragnarok is the most entertained I've been while watching a Thor movie but it's not without its problems.

Story-wise, there is a very quick set-up. You can tell that Taika and producer Kevin Feige wanted to completely dismantle what had been built up in the previous Thor films. I can understand why they wanted to do that but just seeing mythology, characters, and arcs that have been established since 2011 be wiped away or brushed under the carpet was a little disheartening, and this was all during the first act. It was very quick and we were going from scene to scene and location to location very quickly mopping up old plot threads and setting up what this movie was going to be. Once that had happened, and Thor was on the planet Sakar, it became more enjoyable for me. The rest of the movie showcased Taika's style of humor perfectly and had me laughing out loud plenty of times. It did seem a bit like two films at times with one set on Sakar and the other on Asgard as the story kept flipping from one to the other but I was entertained enough with the characters.

Chris Hemsworth has always played Thor brilliantly and we get to see a lot more of his comedic talent here. Mark Ruffalo is always a highlight of any film for me and seeing him here was great both as Banner and the Hulk experiencing this mad Universe. Tom Hiddleston's Loki, of course, appears again and although the character has perhaps lost some of his popularity since everybody loved him in The Avengers, I enjoyed seeing him because I like Tom Hiddleston as an actor. Two new characters I absolutely loved in this film though, were Jeff Goldblum's Grandmaster who is hilarious; Goldblum barely has to act, his own wacky charisma comes through perfectly. And Korg, voiced by Taika Watiti himself had some of the best lines. I'd definitely say the characters were the best part of this film for me.

In the end, I'd say I really enjoyed Thor: Ragnarok. The story is pretty basic and some of the green-screen wasn't great during the re-shoots but I loved the aesthetic and the characters. I laughed a lot too even though I felt some of the emotional beats were lost due to quick jokes. I still look forward to following Taika's work and I'm looking forward to seeing where the character of Thor himself is taken too.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

High-concept visuals don't quite make up for the all-over-the-place narrative and uninspiring plot.

[6/10 · 14 August 2017]

So Valerian is the latest film from French director Luc Besson. It's set in one of those enormous science-fantasy worlds with many aliens, technology, and bright colors, similar to that of Star Wars, Guardians of the Galaxy, or even Besson's 90s cult hit, The Fifth Element. We follow two government agents, Valerian and Laureline, as they try to solve a mystery in the heart of an intergalactic space station inhabited by hundreds of species and cultures.

As you've probably heard already, Valerian looks great. I wouldn't say stunning, I never saw a shot and thought wow, I could frame that; Besson gives us a cool aesthetic but as directing angles and cinematography goes, nothing stood out for me. When I say it looks good, I mean the literal things on screen, the bright colors, the alien designs, the City of Alpha itself, all visually interesting. I could pause the film at any moment and look around to see interesting details that are there, just having a small snippet of extensively-thought out cultures and worlds.

Another thing that was great to see was some original sci-fi concepts I had never seen before. I haven't read the comic so obviously, I don't know how much was taken but there were ideas brought out in Valerian that I thought were really cool and engaging. One particular one that comes to mind is in the first act where our characters must visit a market, and the way they go about this fascinated me and the sorts of things they were doing I really loved watching.

Valerian is played by Dane DeHaan and Laureline is played by Cara Delevingene. I have to say that Cara's performance was the strongest out of the two, she seemed like a real person in this world and I enjoyed her on screen. Now Dane Dehaan, who's acting I really like and have enjoyed his weird, villainess characters in both Chronicle and The Amazing Spider-Man 2; but here, he tries to be some sort of charismatic, best-agent-in-the-company, womanizer and it really doesn't work. It's like getting Michael Cera as James Bond; so as much as I love DeHaan, I feel he was incredibly miss-cast in this. He and Cara had pretty much no chemistry what-so-ever. The rest of the cast were fine and serviceable but nothing outstanding on an acting front. Rihanna was in it however and she did just fine, I've never had complaints about Rihanna's acting and her character itself was really interesting in terms of her abilities but the personality bordered on annoying sometimes for me.

Now as for the story itself, unfortunately, Valerian's narrative is all over the place. I mean, there is a story, you can follow the basic plot I mentioned at the beginning but there are so many tangents and entire scenes and sequences where I'm just thinking, why is this here? Lines of dialogue that make no sense and in the end when you really think about the end result, it was hardly anything major for the Universe or the City of Alpha itself. The premise had us believe our two agents would stop a world-destroying threat and they would have to save the Galaxy but it turns out it was like watching an unused script for a Star Trek episode; you know, entertaining enough, but nothing consequential.

In the end, for me, the high-concept visuals don't quite make up for the all-over-the-place narrative and uninspiring plot.

Dunkirk (2017)

Visually and audibly stunning but the unorthodox narrative didn't always work for me personally.

[27 July 2017]

So Dunkirk is the great Christopher Nolan's first film based on a true story, the evacuation of Dunkirk in World War II. No dreams, no memories, no sci-fi; and yet completely Nolan.

The first thing I have to mention is, of course, the directing. If you've seen Nolan's films and enjoy his aesthetic, his style and direction then Dunkirk hits all the right beats in that regard and more. I really felt like I was in this film. I felt like I was on the windy overcast beach, I felt like I was aboard the little English boat, I felt like I was clinging to the wing of a Spitfire. There was no Hollywood fluff, research had been done; things looked and sounded like it is. So like what I said about Interstellar, this film was more like an experience than a movie. Helping this, of course, is yet another amazing score by Hans Zimmer, using a constant ticking throughout and tense musical tones build up a perfect atmosphere.

Acting wise, Dunkirk has a stellar cast with Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh and Tom Hardy, alongside newcomers like Barry Keoghan, Fionn Whitehead and Harry Styles of all people. But one of the interesting choices Christopher Nolan has made with Dunkirk is that there isn't a great deal of dialogue; there are conversations and lines obviously but mostly you have to engage with the film through visuals alone and that's where the actors do really well with their literal acting in expressions, how they carry themselves and reactions to things; all hard to do but I felt they all did a really great job.

Now, something I have to say about Dunkirk is that it has a very unorthodox narrative. There isn't really a beginning, middle, and end; neither is there really a main character. I felt that this sometimes worked but other times I felt a little lost into where and when we were in the film. So although the film looked and sounded great, the experimental style choices Nolan makes with the story didn't always work for me. I admit I wasn't particularly riveted during a lot of what is a true-story WWII battle. The two best parts for me was the opening, which I really loved; you're straight into the situation and I just really liked first act in general. Then my attention was refocused during the last act which I enjoyed and the very last few scenes were really well done. Don't get me wrong, there were moments and scenes during the main bulk which I enjoyed a lot but as a whole, the unusual nature of the plot and restrained dialogue didn't grab me.

In the end, I'm very glad I've seen Dunkirk because it is a very unique film. It doesn't feel like a move, it feels like an experience, like a segment of life, literally an event, which this was. I've thought a lot about a rating and to be honest I feel like you can't fit this sort of film into any sort of rating system really so I won't. Anway, if you're a fan of Christopher Nolan or World War II, or cinema then you'll get a lot out of Dunkirk; if not, then I'd be really interested in what you think of the film as it proves to be quite controversial.

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

Incredible film-making, directing and acting but an unoriginal and inconsequential plot.

[7/10 · 24 July 2017]

Well, here we are, a conclusion of sorts. I absolutely loved Rise of the Planet of the Apes; it's a film unlike anything I had seen before. Dawn was one of the most intense, edge-of-your-seat experiences I'd ever had in a cinema, and now is the third part of Ceaser's personal trilogy. How did it go?

I'll start off by just saying how much the apes look like actual real animals. Seriously, the CGI improves with every film. There are moments where if you told me that was an advanced animatronic head on screen, I would believe you. There's one particular shot of Maurice the orangutan where I swear it was like watching a close-up in an Attenborough documentary, they are that real. So that in itself blows me away. Of course, along with the expert VFX team, you have Andy Serkis and others doing their performance-capture work as the apes; the emotion and acting they manage to portray is incredible and a thrill to watch.

Moving onto the story now, I have to say, the plot is what lets it down for me. For a film that contains the phrase "War for the Planet", the story is a very contained and inconsequential narrative that has no real bearing on the world as a whole. Sure, it has major points in Ceaser's life and the life of his tribe and what they have to face, and as a story there, it was a suspenseful, brutal, incredibly well- scored and acted film. But in terms of what I feel I had been led to expect, it dropped the ball for me. If I accept what the film is about though, and look directly at the what the plot was, even then, although it's not a bad film, it's completely unoriginal. What transpires from the second act onwards is everything we've seen before in films where a group of characters must escape somewhere; it hits all the beats of that genre and the only change it offers is the fact that it's with apes; which, to be fair, is a fascinating visual and I will never grow tired of seeing how the apes are depicted in this franchise but because Rise and Dawn were so different from anything I'd seen before I was not expecting this film to be so familiar.

I mean there are more aspects about this film I liked a lot, including Steve Zahn's character, some of the little easter-eggs and callbacks to the 1968 film and Michael Giacchino's score, which were all great, and I'm not saying this is a bad film, it's just very unoriginal and falls into some clichés every now and again.

In the end, War For the Planet of the Apes is an incredible step- up in film-making itself with the directing, acting and what VFX is capable of but for me personally the story was a let-down and I very much hope there is a next entry after this as I feel there is more to tell.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

A really great Spider-Man movie from beginning to end with Michael Keaton being a huge highlight.

[9/10 · 13 July 2017]

So here we are, the third reboot of Spider-Man, the sixth modern Spider-Man film, the sixteenth entry into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. What can I say? It's actually really great! I enjoyed Spider-Man: Homecoming a lot, right from the opening all the way to literally the end of the credits.

We saw Tom Holland's Peter Parker in Captain America: Civil War and there I wasn't too sure on him, he was very different from the film Spider-Men I was used to in Toby Maguire and Andrew Garfield but here in Homecoming I really enjoyed him. And it's his difference which is what I now enjoy about him, he really felt like a kid in school and even though we don't see his origin, he's still really new to this. Although I like the previous two adaptations, to different levels, it seemed only after a brief montage did Spider- Man suddenly become very skilled and professional, but here in Homecoming, you can see he's an amateur through the whole film, he makes mistakes, he bumbles about and I really enjoyed seeing that; so for me, Tom Holland is great in the role. Another cast member who was absolutely fantastic was Michael Keaton; his portrayal as Adrian Toomes was so intimidating, never mind as the Vulture, that he is up there with the better Marvel villains, which of course is a common criticism of these films. He really had a lot of great scenes and some very suspenseful ones. The supporting cast was entertaining enough, Peters friends at school were some familiar archetypes but enjoyable ones and Zendaya delivered some lines that made me laugh. Robert Downey Jr. didn't appear as much as many feared and his number of appearances felt just right for a film about Spider-Man.

Story-wise, I enjoyed a lot; the Vulture had really logical reasons for his actions and Peters arc was well-done with some quite dramatic and emotional scenes. The humor wasn't forced and I'd say the majority of the jokes landed for me. There were plenty of easter eggs and references and actually some of the nods to previous events really felt like you were part of large Universe and it was nice to see how the general public, as it were, viewed the Avengers, similar to how Ant- Man was a smaller-scale story and the villain wasn't looking to take over the world, it's the same here, a nice normalised perspective on an enormous Universe.

If I had to pick faults with the movie, I'd say one or two bits of dialogue were very expositional in the way of not really needing to be said, and also Spider-Mans suit was a bit Iron Man-like which makes sense in the context of the film but I'd be happy if they did away with the JARVIS-type AI and the heads-up display.

In the end, you probably can tell I really enjoyed Spider-Man: Homecoming and it's up there with the best of the MCU franchise.

Transformers: The Last Knight (2017)

Convoluted plot, terrible characters, ignores its own continuity.

[5/10 · 4 July 2017]

So this is the fifth, that's right, fifth, film in the Bayformers franchise; and this is supposed to be the beginning; they got a special writers room with all these screenwriters and story guys to build an enormous cinematic universe with an epic story arc. So let's see what they came up with...

I'll start with things I like. This film had some interesting visuals for sure. The sight of Transformers in the world of the medieval knights was certainly something I'd never thought I'd see and I enjoyed the aesthetic if nothing else. In fact, the first act of this film I did sort of enjoy; but I'm afraid my enjoyment didn't last.

This movie is so convoluted, stupid and non-sensical that I cannot believe how far it has come since 2007. Transformers: The Last Knight reaches a new low by having even more pointless characters that don't factor into the plot at all, introductions where the name of the Transformer appears on the screen in a freeze frame, Optimus Prime has at least 20 mins of screen time, and it ignores it's own continuity over and over again, even from things it set up in the previous film! The dialogue was either exposition or unfunny humor, and I use the term "humor" loosely as it seems getting sophisticated British actors Sir Anthony Hopkins and Jim Carter to say modern slang and profanity counts as funny.

Even if you enjoy the craziness of what this franchise has become, and you like the humor and aren't bothered with the plot, the actual filmmaking itself is terrible, from the constant change in aspect ratio to the very strange flashing end credits that appear while the film is still going!

In the end, I did not enjoy Transformers: The Last Knight. It's still cool to see giant alien robots transform into vehicles, and it was cool to see Josh Duhamel return and be a connection to the first three films but there are so many factors that let it down for me that I have to give it a 5/10.

Wonder Woman (2017)

A real step-up for DC, for me. Investing characters carried me through some minor problems.

[8/10 · 10 June 2017]

So here we are, back in the DC Cinematic Universe that, so far, hasn't been greatly received but maybe that's all about to change. Wonder Woman stars Gal Gadot as the titular character and also boasts the cast of Chris Pine, Danny Huston, Connie Nielson, and Robin Wright. These all do great in the film but by far, Gal and Chris steal the show, their chemistry, interactions, and characters are a real joy to watch. Gal Gadot's Diana is such an interesting character as this powerful, but naive Amazon woman experiencing early 20th century Europe. She conveys strength, humor, and emotion really well and looks great in the action scenes. Chris Pine is classic Chris Pine which is a bonus to any movie whether it's a science-fiction space franchise or a Lindsy Lohan chick flick, and so here in Wonder Woman, he delivers another entertaining character in Steve Trevor.

The other cast include Steve's group of merry men he must team up with and I have to say I enjoyed them quite a bit, they each had a distinct personality and even their own little personal battles to deal with. On the villain front, I can't say much because of spoilers but I really enjoyed Danny Huston and Elana Anaya's evil duo, they reminded me a lot of classic 60s villains for some reason. And this movie does that a few times, it gives you the sense of classic movies, whether it's the nods to 1970s Superman or just the slowed down nature of the plot, Wonder Woman just felt familiar and comfortable.

Plot-wise, as I say, had quieter moments and they didn't pack it full of action which made a nice change to the usual format; it really mad us feel for these characters and care when things happen. The beginning had a bit of an unsteady pace and the climax was a bit generic CGI battle but because the characters were so investing I didn't mind as much. And just seeing the aesthetic of ancient Greek culture mixing with World War I was an interesting visual in itself.

In the end, I feel Wonder Woman is a real step-up for DC, whether it was the director, Patty Jenkins, the writers or a mix of a few things. The film isn't perfect but I'd be lying if I said I did not enjoy it.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)

Visually amazing, really funny, plot was a bit choppy.

[8/10 · 5 May 2017]

Guardians of the Galaxy was a break-out hit for Marvel in 2014 and has since become quite a pop cultural icon. Well, three years later and we return to this crazy space extravaganza seeing the likes of Star- Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket, Groot and more once again. And it's these cast of characters that are one of the great things about these films.

Chris Pratt always seems like such a nice guy and his Peter Quill character is thus an enjoyable one to watch again. I enjoy Zoe Saldana and even though a notable number of her recent roles have been in very similar settings I find Gamora to be the most interesting. But for me, the best Guardian in this film was Drax the Destroyer; he had the best lines and got the hardest laughs from me. The other returning cast did great as well, I can't pick a problem with any of Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan or Sean Gunn's work here; they did just as well as they did in the previous movies with perhaps one or two having to stretch their characters emotionally and succeeding. Newcomers included Kurt Russell which was great to see and he played Quill's father really well, I can believe that the two are related. Pom Klementieff was surprisingly entertaining portraying the childlike gullibility of Mantis and am looking forward to how she'll be used in the future.

Story wise, Vol. 2 is very different from the first which was great as I don't like repetitive franchises but the plot wasn't as structured. It felt like half the story was focused on Peter and his dad and all that involved but then the writers had to come up with something for the other Guardians to do so paired them off with various characters and had them either sit around or have things happen to them for which they had to deal with. The final third was where it all came together though, as it would, and the climax was, although familiar in parts, visually unique and quite stunning thus making up for any narrative problems. And the Guardians films do have a lot of great visuals which is one of the reasons why I enjoy watching them.

In the end Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 wasn't as good as the first but I'm definitely not saying it wasn't good. I laughed out loud, it was surprisingly emotional, and having five post-credit scenes isn't as bad as it sounds.

The Fate of the Furious (2017)

A satisfactory entry into the franchise with great one-liners and OTT stunts.

[7/10 · 21 April 2017]

I do not enjoy films where over-the-top characters spout out cheesy lines after committing some physics-defying act for a generic plot. So why is it then, that every time I sit and watch a Fast & Furious movie, I come out with a great smile on my face from an utterly enjoyable time? The Fate of the Furious is no different and I never expected anything less. Vin Diesel returns as Dominic Toretto leading his team of multi-cultural criminals along with government guy Dwayne Johnson but this time Toretto has seemingly turned on his friends and is now working with a mysterious baddie.

The cast, of course, is great. Diesel is on top form in his role as he has been for over a decade. Some of his other films don't do as well but this franchise makes up for it and it's a joy to revisit his unique delivery of lines. Johnson, again, is always a pleasure; he seems like a real nice guy in real life and his characters are always a bonus to a film, and in this case, Luke Hobbs, has some great one-liners which no doubt were the cause of some outtakes due to others cracking up. His verbal sparring partner here is Jason Statham returning from the previous film and he is the epitome of an over-the-top action star so putting him in this franchise was a genius move. The rest of the team were absolutely fine as well; Michelle Rodrigues and Ludicrous are as good as they ever are; Tyrese Gibson is the same too, I don't particular find his humor funny but he is a staple of the franchise and so I'm glad he's in it despite his cringy jokes. Kurt Russell returns from Furious 7 and once again plays the shady government agent Mr. Nobody, and he does it pretty well. Nathalie Emmanuel also comes back but I really didn't see a need for her character; she seemed very pointless. The actress does great in the role but there isn't really a role other than someone the Tej character can relate to and then sit in the passenger seat during car chases.

As far as cars go, The Fate of the Furious gives us some great car action, from the very first one in Cuba to the ludicrously horrifying chase in New York. I don't think the stunts were as impressive as the previous ones, such as jumping through buildings or dragging a safe through Brazil, but it has satisfactory action pieces, especially towards the end. As far as plot goes, it's fine for this sort of film; there was a twist of sorts which took me while to get used to and will have to see where it goes but ultimately the Charlize Theron story was engaging enough but not wildly original.

The Fate of the Furious was another satisfactory entry into the Fast & Furious series and even though it had the absence of Paul Walker, due to terrible circumstances, I didn't feel the film suffered from it. I think I prefer Fast Five and Furious 7 over this, making it as good as Fast & Furious 6, in my opinion, but in the end, I'm always going to enjoy Vin Diesel using some special nitro to win a race to the soundtrack of the current popular electronic music.

Kong: Skull Island (2017)

Incredible visuals and creature design but poorly written.

[7/10 · 16 March 2017]

Kong: Skull Island is the second film in the "MonsterVerse" after Gareth Edward's 2014 film, Godzilla. It stars a lot of people, including, Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman and John C. Reilly as a group of scientists and soldiers exploring a mysterious island. I've seen the main Kong films throughout the years and I have to say I do enjoy the concept of people finding an enormous gorilla on a primeval island; I always remember when I was younger being creeped out by Peter Jackson's 2005 King Kong and at one point was quite obsessed with it; since then I've enjoyed the 1933 original and even watched the not-so-good 1976 attempt. Now though we see a different take on the character, one set in the 70s, and of a larger world.

I'll start with what I enjoyed, and first and foremost would be both the soundtrack and original score. Being set in the 70s, director Jordan Vogt-Roberts gives us some great pieces of music to accompany various scenes giving the film an upbeat, feel-good vibe, similar to that of Guardians of the Galaxy, or The Martian. And Henry Jackman delivers a well-composed dramatic score which includes some 70s vibes.

Another thing to enjoy is that this film is full of really cool moments; scenes or shots that intend for you to be awed. Whether it be a silhouette of choppers flying towards Kong or just the animals and people of the island being framed through the Brie Larson character's 1970 era camera lens which makes for a really nice touch. Vogt- Roberts certainly has an eye for interesting and unique camera set ups and there were some great ones in here I really loved as well as some epic wide shots that you could just frame.

Now unfortunately it's these amazing moments and "awe shots" that sort bring the movie down for me. While it's great to have those kind of scenes, you can't rely on them. Kong: Skull Island was visually stunning, almost to a surreal sense at times, adding to the island mystery, but as far as story and script goes, it was a bit underdeveloped. For the first two-thirds of the movie it felt like the story was just quickly written dialogue to get us from one cool shot to the next. The characters hardly had any development and surprisingly the most fleshed-out and interesting character was John C. Reilly's Hank Marlow. Although Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson are certainly great actors and look great, their characters were very one-dimensional. Hiddleston's was a generic former military hunter/tracker man with convenient skills and Larson's was a photographer, and that was pretty much it. Sam Jackson and John Goodman are also great actors and have delivered some incredibly iconic characters but here even they almost seemed expendable at points.

So although the film is let down script-wise and is quite unevenly paced throughout most of it the final third is really good as it flows much better and the creature is design is amazing. Kong looks great, as well as some of the other fearsome creatures that inhabit the island but the stand-out for me were the disturbingly hideous Skull Crawlers whose mere existence you were thankful were only fictional.

In the end Kong: Skull Island isn't quite what I expected it to be but it is a great-looking monster-movie and even has an after-credit scene for those who like to get excited for what's to come.

The Lego Batman Movie (2017)

Amazing animated film full of things I was not expecting.

[8/10 · 20 February 2017]

The LEGO Batman Movie is, of course. the spin-off to the popular 2014 animation The LEGO Movie. This time, though, it's all about Batman! I didn't know what to expect when I heard this was being made but when those trailers arrived I knew I was in. I enjoyed The LEGO Batman Movie a lot more than I thought I would; it's full of so many things I wasn't expecting that I just couldn't help but love it. I wouldn't say the cast is as stellar as it's predecessor but the script certainly carries it along with joke after joke, and references and easter eggs that you're probably not going to pick up all of them upon first viewing. Not to say the cast is bad in any way; Will Arnett as Batman and Zac Galifianakis as the Joker are genius casting; the lines these two come out with are amazing and I just loved when each of them were on screen.

And although a movie called "The LEGO Batman Movie" sounds like it's for kids, I think the older ones will certainly get a kick out of this like I did, especially if you're a film buff or a Batman fan. As I said before, the mentions and appearances you get in this are fantastic. But of course no film can carry itself on quips alone, The LEGO Batman Movie does have a story and although it's quite a familiar one and perhaps even similar in ways to The LEGO Movie, I still enjoyed seeing all the LEGO visuals and the top-notch animation that still looks like they filmed real LEGO pieces. There were some heartfelt drama in there too and I think it sends a good message which is what these type of films should do anyway.

So all-in-all, I really enjoyed The LEGO Batman Movie, from literally the opening logos to the brilliant soundtrack, for me, it gets an 8/10.

Passengers (I) (2016)

It wasn't terrible, it wasn't amazing. It just...was.

[6/10 · 29 December 2016]

Passengers stars Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence as two passengers who have woken up from hibernation on a ship traveling across space to a new planet, they are the only two who have woken up, however, with about nine decades to go before the ship reaches the destination. I've been looking forward to this for a while; I'd heard about the popularity of the unmade script and the synopsis got me interested, I resisted reading the script but as bits of news trickled in, I kept interested, especially when Pratt and Lawrence were attached as I enjoy their work.

I'll start, as always, with what I enjoy and number one for me with that is the visuals. The design of the ship, both exterior and interior are amazing. It's a place I would love to visit, from the information interfaces to the architecture, I really enjoyed seeing that. The CGI is top-notch, I don't remember seeing any iffy effects so on that front it's great; they blended it well with real things as well, especially in a sequence (which was in the trailer) concerning a swimming pool and gravity, I thought it was a tense and well-done sequence. So all together I'd say that Passengers was, in general, a good-looking film.

What adds to that, of course, are its main leads. Chris Pratt doesn't do dramatic often but here he had to pull off some emotional scenes and I can't say he managed all of them successfully but he gave them a good shot and delivered some quite unexpected compelling series of events in the first act of the movie. Jennifer Lawrence appears alongside and she does just as you'd expect, she's a great actor, looks great, she did just fine in her role. She and Pratt had good chemistry, I thought and enjoyed seeing them together. An extra cast member includes Michael Sheen as the android, Arthur, and he was one of the best parts of the film for me. He was the source of the majority of humor and his constant positive personality was very entertaining.

Plot-wise, I felt there were three defined parts to it. The first act, was my favorite, it gave off a cast-away vibe and you could feel the isolation, perhaps if they'd have stuck with that a bit longer it would've been a bit more impactful but it was certainly the best part of the film for me. The second act slowed down a little, it was exactly what I expected from the film, going in; Pratt and Lawrence being a couple on screen and all that entails from flirting to getting-to-know-each-other and all that. Some plot developments did occur, though, and it started to get going again and I was genuinely surprised at one point and enjoyed a certain aspect which I won't spoil here. The third act though happened so suddenly, it was actually quite jarring. There was nothing wrong with it itself, just quite quick and almost predictable.

And that's the thing with Passengers, it's not a bad movie by any stretch, but it isn't mind-blowing either. We've seen almost every element before. It felt clean, it felt safe. It was innocuous. There were some twists and turns but you realize the trailer spoils a lot when you're watching the film. All-in-all, Passengers was just OK, and that's it.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

Not as streamlined or grand as your main saga episodes, but it brought something new to the table and it worked.

[8/10 · 19 December 2016]

Rogue One is the first Star Wars Anthology film, it isn't an episode, it doesn't follow the lives of a Skywalker. In fact, as you probably know but I'll confirm here just in case: it takes place just before 1977's Episode IV: A New Hope. I've been looking forward to this film for a while because I'm a fan of director Gareth Edwards and this universe in general.

I'll start by talking about the cast, the majority of which I didn't know. Felicity Jones leads with her character Jyn Erso and from the trailers I didn't particularly like what I saw; the character just didn't seem likable and to an extent that carried over into the film at the beginning, but then as time went on they laid out a plausible reason for her personality and I grew accustomed to it very quickly and it worked for the story; Felicity Jones does great in the role as I've enjoyed her performances before in films such as The Theory of Everything. Diego Luna's Cassian Andor was an interesting character to watch, his internal struggle with the moral gray area he operated in made for some compelling scenes and Diego's performance I thought was great as I've never seen his work before. Some other cast and character highlights were Alan Tudyk's hilarious droid K-2SO, he delivered some great lines, but they weren't cheap jokes or eye rolls, he's no Jar Jar Binks; even though he was the comedic relief he also served a purpose and could defend himself when needed. Donnie Yen's blind Chirrut Îmwue and his partner Baze were a very entertaining and sometimes quite touching duo who had some great action sequences between them.

On a villain front, I have to say I really enjoyed Ben Mendelsohn as Orson Krennic. He came across as a classic Star Wars baddie but brought something new in his disposition and line delivery. His own arc as well was a compelling one and in the end, after some thought, you start to feel sorry for this guy, especially in the context of the other films. Now of course Darth Vader turns up during the film and that's what a lot of people were excited about (including myself), and so I'll just say that he isn't in it much, which I'm fine with, but I know a lot of people wanted more of him....Although there a specific scene that he's in that people are going talk about for a long time. So in the end, I really enjoyed the cast, perhaps with the exception of Forest Whitaker, who did fine in his role, but his role wasn't really needed; it just felt like we'd missed something, like there was more of a story there but was cut.

Now talking of story, Rogue One, is somewhat predictable in the main arc because you know what it's about, you've seen what takes place afterwords, but finally knowing the specifics and details is a real treat, for the most part. The first third of the film is very choppy, we're suddenly moving from one location to another super quick setting up each character and situation and it's a bit messy. When the plot gets going, though, it really picks up and becomes an entertaining series of events following these characters, that lead to an epic climactic third act. A complaint the film has is that the majority of characters weren't fleshed out enough and so they didn't care about them but I didn't find that at all; sure we didn't really get to know their history and motivations but just with the time we did spend with them, I really felt for these people by the end, and the ending itself made me come away viewing these people in a different way.

The final scenes of Rogue One is truly one of the most memorable moments I've had in a cinema. From the choices the film-writers make regarding the characters, to the final five minutes before credits roll, I have to say that Disney certainly is in a league of their own. Was the film perfect? No, not at all, there are things I haven't managed to touch on because of spoilers, but there are also amazing things I couldn't mention for the same reason. As a conclusion. I'll say that although it isn't as streamlined or grand as your main saga episodes, it brought something new to the table and it worked.

Arrival (II) (2016)

Visually stunning with thought-provoking concepts, yet a little slow paced at times.

[9/10 · 17 November 2016]

I love science-fiction so when I see a trailer and there are huge ships, alien beings, Amy Adams & Jeremy Renner I'm in.

Now although I've just said there are ships and aliens coming to Earth this is in no way your alien Independence Day, Mars Attacks type scenario then you're going to be disappointed. Arrival stars Amy Adams as linguist Louise Banks who has been brought in by the government to help communicate with the extraterrestrials that have landed twelve ships around the globe; both she and Jeremy Renner's physicist, Ian Donelly must work out why they are here and what they want through their various visits inside a ship that has landed in Montana, USA. invasion movie; if you're walking in expecting some

The story director Denis Villeneuve and writer Eric Heisserer gives us is unique to say the least. Villeneuve's use of close-ups makes it such a personal and intimate story. His wide shots, including an impressive continuous shot, make the locations a gorgeous visual masterpiece to enjoy. All of these are scored amazingly by Jóhann Jóhannsson who's use of vocals in the music gives both an earthly feel but also surrealness to it. Villeneuve's decision when and where to use this music also proves well making impactful scenes and emotional moments.

Of course the directing can't always work on its own but Amy Adams gives one of the best performances I've seen her give. I really can't expand further on that without giving spoilers but things like her reactions to the extraterrestrials and moments towards the end certainly tell me that this was a good casting choice. The other two leads are Jeremy Renner and Forest Whitaker both of which do a fine job; if you've seen their other work then you know what to expect here, they are both brilliant actors and play their roles just right but Amy Adams certainly steals the show in acting terms.

Now for the plot of the film, I don't really know what to say. It's best to go into Arrival as unaware as you can with just the basic plot details such as the ones I gave earlier. I will however say that Arrival is one of those films that leaves you thinking about it for a couple of days. When the credits roll you just need a moment to ponder over it and piece together some of the revelations you've just had. When a film can do that I respect it. It's concepts of time, language, narrative and humanity is a lot to take in and certainly food for thought.

I will most certainly watch the film again and upon second viewing I will see it differently than before with the knowledge I have. Is it the best film ever made? No, I've seen films that I have enjoyed a lot more and serve my personal tastes better. Arrival will definitely lose some viewers with it's slow burn quality; some may feel it drags and if you're not interested in the art of cinematography and film-making then it will feel even slower to you. And as someone who calls themselves a cinephile, even I was surprised at the gentle pace some of the scenes were going.

In the end Arrival is stunningly beautiful with incredible acting and surreal sounds. It's commentary on stories is one I will remember and if I had to liken it to other films then I'd say some of the vibes I took from it were ones similar to that of Contact, Signs, and Inception. It won't be everyone's cup of tea but an interesting cup of tea it is.

Inferno (I) (2016)

Weakest of the three so far but highlights include Irrfan Khan, Hans Zimmer and the third act.

[6/10 · 20 October 2016]

Tom Hanks returns as the symbologist Robert Langdon in the third adaptation of Dan Brown's books, again directed by Ron Howard; this time he must solve clues and escape organizations to save the world from a deadly plague. I always enjoy these sorts of films, National Treasure, Sahara, The DaVinci Code - they aren't credited for their quality but there's something about the ancient codes and puzzles genre that entertains me so I was expecting some enjoyment from Inferno despite it not being one of my most anticipated films of the year.

And true to form, Inferno did give me Tom Hanks running around beautiful Europe solving clues but not quite as much or at least not as interesting as the previous two films; Inferno didn't really focus on the problem-solving tropes of the genre but gave us more action set pieces and character relationships, which is OK in itself but not what I came to Inferno for.

The cast of these films though are always a highlight. Tom Hanks is one of the best actors of our generation so it's great seeing him on screen again and does some top notch performances, especially at the beginning of the film. He's joined this time by Felicity Jones who is more than adequate at playing the young attractive sidekick and has some good moments with Hanks. Another highlight to join is Irrfan Khan, I really do enjoy watching him in films since I was first introduced to him in Life of Pi, he is a unique presence in this film as the head of a shadowy organization and gives some welcome comedic moments here and there. Ben Foster, whose work I'm not as familiar with, plays the antagonist somewhat and was a convincing billionaire bent on ending half of humanity for the greater good. Apart from those the rest of the characters were fairly wooden and uninteresting which may be due to how they are introduced or lack of screen time.

A major positive of the film though is the third act which is a tense sequence of events scored brilliantly by Hans Zimmer. The whole film is shot very quick-pace and some shaky-cam which didn't always work and the beginning was a little unsure on what to focus on but in the climax it felt natural and it worked.

In the end I enjoyed both The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons a little more but all three films are higher-average at best with Inferno being the weakest.

The Little Prince (2015)

Stunning visuals, talented cast, unique story, disappointing third act.

[8/10 · 11 August 2016]

I'm surprised this film hasn't been promoted more; even if you haven't read the book it's based on (like me) the film boasts a fantastic cast with the likes of Jeff Bridges, Rachel McAdams, Paul Rudd, James Franco and more. The animation style is similar to that of Pixar, which is interwoven with stunning stop-motion moments. So in general this film has a lot going for it.

For the most part, I really liked The Little Prince. As I say, the cast do an amazing job, each role is brought to life with very unique voices and delivery. You can have a film with unknown cast and sometimes that works quite well but sometimes when you hear these voices and you instantly recognise them, it gives you as sense of comfort and familiarity; and the lines delivered by ones such as Jeff Bridges and James Franco make them really stick with you. Like a lot of good animated films, The Little Prince gives you a lot of mottos and life lessons to remember; some of the ones in this movie though, I felt didn't come across as clearly as intended. Something would be happening and I was left wondering exactly what it was trying to tell me, and that's the thing with this movie, there seems to be a lot of metaphors, all of which are presented beautifully, but are left up for interpretation. So in terms of cast and dialogue, I really thought the film was something special.

I mentioned the animation before and I'll just elaborate. The majority of the film is computer animated and although not as detailed as the more popular animation studios can give, which is to be expected, the look and style were enjoyable enough and it seems like they took a few notes from Pixar, which is never a bad thing. The animation though is nothing compared to the visually stunning stop-motion sequences that are presented. It's nothing like I've seen before and was by far the most interesting parts of the film; a visual experience.

I'll move onto the story now. The summary of which is a little girl moves to a new house with her very controlling, almost OCD, mother and meets her neighbour, an old man who has a hoarding problem that tells her about his supposed experience he had in the Sahara desert. The first two thirds I really enjoyed, some could argue it's a bit slow, but for me I enjoyed the storytelling element and the sometimes very real depictions of life spliced in with the wildly imaginative metaphors. The friendship between the little girl and the old man was a charming and entertaining watch, and the stop- motion story always had me invested. The third act however took quite a turn in the narrative, the tone changed somewhat and I was constantly waiting for some degree of explanation. I felt it got a little too mixed up into what was real, what was metaphorical, and it didn't quite give closure to some of the plot threads. According to some Internet articles both the book and the film try to base it's logic on a child's imagination so I suppose in that way it makes sense...in a nonsensical kind of way.

In the end, The Little Prince was a visually stunning film with a great script and voice work but the narrative was a little shaky, especially towards the third act.

Finding Dory (2016)

An adequate sequel from Pixar but had some story issues.

[7/10 · 4 August 2016]

So Finding Dory is the sequel to 2003's brilliant Finding Nemo and we rejoin our main fish friends Dory, Marlin & Nemo as they go on an adventure in the waters of California. I really like Finding Nemo, I think it makes the ocean really interesting and encompasses the vastness of it really well along with giving us investing characters to enjoy. I was a little concerned with Finding Dory however as Pixar has only had success with follow-ups in the Toy Story series; both Cars 2 and Monsters University were average at best.

This sequel though, isn't too bad. Finding Dory is mostly an entertaining and well-made movie. As with all Pixar films, the animation is some of the best in the business. The sand, the water, the textures on the animals is all so breathtaking to look at (even more so in the short-film beforehand) that the visuals alone make the film worth watching. Fortunately Finding Dory also has a top- notch script filled with funny moments, really good life lessons and mottos, all delivered wonderfully by the cast.

Ellen DeGeneres obviously is the highlight as the titular character and she is just as entertaining as the first time we met her and you really feel that she is always so genuine in everything she says and does, you want to be friends with Dory. I actually enjoyed a lot of the new characters introduced also; Hank the octopus makes for a visually interesting character with him being able to change colour and manipulate his body and they allude subtly to things from his past which was a nice way to build the character. Destiny the whale shark is also introduced and I wasn't the biggest fan of her character, I felt the 'clumsy friend' thing wore off quickly and some things she did didn't make sense in terms of what animal she is. Her friend Bailey the Beluga however I thoroughly enjoyed, he had some great lines and entertained me whenever he was on screen, and proved to be educational in some respects with cool visuals. Two more characters I'll quickly mention are the two sea lions voiced by Idris Elba and Dominic West; they were great, I'm always happy to see Idris in stuff so this was a treat and their scenes were very funny together.

Moving onto one or two negative points now; the story has some issues. I really enjoyed the beginning and the majority of the main story but pacing was a problem every now and again. For instance, I won't spoil it, but the whole reason they had to find Dory happened so quickly and rushed it kind of felt they were trying to make a reason to call it "Finding Dory", if I were honest it's more like finding Dory's parents, which isn't a spoiler as that is the synopsis of the film.

Another point is that Finding Nemo took place almost entirely in the ocean which made the adventure seem that much bigger and exciting whereas here it all happens in an aquarium which makes sense I guess as they don't want to rehash the same things and try something new but one part did require them to cross the ocean and it made it seem as though it takes just a few minutes whereas in the first film it took the entire movie to get to somewhere much closer than where this takes place. And a final thing I wasn't a fan of was the climax. Now obviously it being a children's film I have to suspend some disbelief but the whole final bit just didn't fit into the world Finding Nemo set up, I thought it went a bit too far.

In the end though Finding Dory was an adequate sequel; I was entertained and it was certainly better than some of Pixar's recent entries. Nostalgia still makes me prefer the first film but when you've been watching it since the age of five, it's hard to root that out.

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Feels more like Trek. Brings back the humour. Directing wasn't mind-blowing but I was entertained.

[8/10 · 28 July 2016]

In general, I like Star Trek. I haven't seen the majority of the various series but I've seen the films and I enjoy the concepts and franchise as a whole. I really enjoyed the 2009 reboot and even after seeing the sequel I came away having had a good time despite problems. So going into this film I was expecting to be entertained.

And entertained I was. I really enjoyed Star Trek Beyond. Chris Pine again leads a spectacular cast who all do great jobs in their roles, making them their own while still channeling the portrayal of the original cast. Simon Pegg helped write the script for the film and for the most part I thought he did a great job. The dialogue was perfect for ones like Bones & Spock when they banter between one another, and although there were references and nods to the past it didn't feel forced and it wasn't overdone. Star Trek Beyond had a lot of moments where it felt like Star Trek, with just the landscapes, the technology, the story, I thought it captured the feel of the original series more than the previous two did.

Two new cast members for the film included Sofia Boutella as Jaylah, who did absolutely fine in the role, the character could have done with a bit more fleshing out but acting-wise, Boutella played the action-ready alien girl well through all that make-up and was entertaining enough. Talking of acting through make-up though, Idris Elba is brilliant as the villainous Krall. I enjoy Elba in almost every role of his but a menacing alien baddie suits him perfectly with his voice adding an intimidating aspect to an already frightfully- looking character. Kralls motives and background I also found enjoyable and unexpected; they left a lot unexplained until the third act but I enjoyed his arc none-the-less.

Just quickly I'll mention the visuals of the movie. The Enterprise looks amazing, as it should be, there are some shots at the start of the film I really liked, both inside and outside the ship. Justin Lin did an adequate enough job as director although I would like to see someone else take on the next installment.

Talking about visuals allows me to move onto one or two negative things I felt the movie had; some of the CGI, where people were concerned, wasn't perfect. Space, and landscapes and spaceships look great but I did notice moments where people had to fall through the air or do something that needed to be computer-generated and it was obvious to me. Now another problem I had might just be my personal feelings but the very first scene of the film, I won't spoil, felt a bit off, like it didn't belong in a Star Trek movie, it's very short and I like what they were going for but the execution felt to me a bit silly. One last thing is that the overall plot is quite simplistic, probably not a problem for a lot of people, and it didn't bother me too much, but the whole story wasn't as complex as previous ones have been and if you thought about it then you could probably predict a lot of things that were going to happen.

In the end though I thoroughly enjoyed Star Trek Beyond, it was funny, it was Trekkie, it was pure summer fun and I look forward to seeing where the franchise goes with these films.

Stranger Things (2016–2025)

Really enjoyed the 80s vibe. Kids acting is incredible.

[10/10 · 21 July 2016]

Stranger Things seems to have come out of nowhere, I had never heard of it right up until they released the trailer last month. So if you didn't know, Stranger Things is a Netflix original series created by The Duffer Brothers and is set in 1983 Indiana where a young boy goes missing in a small town where strange things are happening and an unusual girl shows up.

So right away, this setting is genius. I never lived in the 80s but after this I really feel as though I was there, they didn't bang you over the head with it shoving pop culture references at you every minute but just how they dressed, their hair, the posters on a bedroom wall, it all seemed so natural and not gimmicky at all. The movie Super 8 did this to a certain degree and I enjoy that movie but Stranger Things seemed to make it more real to me. What added to it especially was the music, from the opening credits to the score itself, the use of synth music worked excellently to bring you this mysterious, fascinating and yet nostalgic atmosphere; so all-in-all they really did well with the setting and time-period and will definitely be checking out the soundtrack, all of which served as a brilliant backdrop to the plot.

As I said, a kid goes missing; it's something we've seen many times in television and film but because it is such an urgent, fearful, disturbing event you are instantly following the case because you want to know what has happened and you want to see him back; so from the very first episode I was hooked and I was staying. Now the series is only eight episodes and I think that's a good thing; a lot of American shows have upwards of twenty and sometimes that can lose momentum and become very episodic, which works depending on the nature of the series, but I do enjoy a lot of British shows where they usually have between six and thirteen episodes negating the need for fillers and can concentrate on a good script. Here the Duffer Brothers have crafted a simple but very well written story that feels more like a movie; each episode follows on instantly from the previous with no recaps or 'Next Time' trailers so if you were to watch Stranger Things, a binge is required. The also know when to show things and when to not, they spent their budget wisely and paid wonderful homage to the Hollywood of that time giving you visuals reminding you of things like The Goonies and E.T. These callbacks also never detract from the plot and fit the story well; also despite the 80s adventure inspiration, Stranger Things isn't necessarily for the Spielberg audience with one or two darker moments scattered here and there.

Now I can't do this review without mentioning the cast. Winona Ryder and David Harbour are really well cast as the adult leads, from the desperate mother who still holds out faith to the driven police chief taking on mysterious government agents. The rest of the cast are largely unknown including the main kids but they were so talented. Millie Bobby Brown and Finn Wolfhard being highlights having to display complex emotions and intelligent arcs. I wish I could mention all of the cast because they were so good, from Joe Keery as high school jock Steve to even the teacher Mr Clarke, each person had a life and character you were invested in.

In the end Stranger Things is a really well made original series with some of the best cast, music and writing I've seen in awhile that also has some surprisingly good humour that made laugh out loud. I really hope the series gains traction because I can see the cast and crew going places, as well as a possible season 2.

Now You See Me 2 (2016)

Not as good as the first but an adequate sequel.

[7/10 · 7 July 2016]

Despite the majority opinion I really enjoy 2013's Now You See Me; sure some of it doesn't make sense but for some reason I find it very entertaining. This year's sequel sees us eighteen months since the events of the first film and the Four Horsemen are tasked with performing a heist for Daniel Radcliffe.

First off, you have to acknowledge the all-star cast here; I really enjoyed them in the first one so it was great to see the likes of Mark Ruffalo, Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Morgan Freeman and more back on board. They all do an excellent job of course and get straight back into these characters who's lives I was fully invested in. After the twist at the end of the original I was wondering how Ruffalo's character would change but I really enjoyed the majority of his arc in this and it builds on what we knew of his back-story already which was cool. We did have some new characters introduced to us and they were just OK; Isla Fisher did not return as the female Horseman so they bring in Lizzy Caplan as this new magician and despite a bit of a rushed introduction she was surprisingly tolerable; her character may be a little irritating to some as she is used as the comic relief a lot which was unnecessary and I do think Fisher's character was more interesting but as far as replacements go, she wasn't bad. Daniel Radcliffe also joins this cast as our antagonistic billionaire who wants something only the Horseman can get; so yeah it's a plot-point we've seen a lot of times in film but hey, it is a heist movie so I'll let it slide. He was absolutely fine in his character, not quite as threatening as sometimes I think he was meant to be but once you get used to this what this type of movie is, he's more than adequate.

Just touching on the plot; it's a basic heist movie with the Now You See Me glitter all over it so plenty of illusions and visually interesting effects. I enjoyed it quite a lot, plenty of action, plenty of tricks, the locations were interesting as well, quite international which I enjoyed. There were a few twists here and there but some you could see coming and others I wasn't particularly keen on. I know they tried to top the big reveal of the last movie but it didn't really work here; it seemed to struggle explaining what it was they were surprising us with. But as a whole the main story worked for me.

Something, or rather someone, I did not enjoy much was a particular character they introduced as a relative to one of the horseman; his purpose was a little unnecessary and what they made him into just brought the quality of this movie down. He was more suited for some sort of comedy which unfortunately this film tried to much of. The first film had funny moments and Harrelson was our comic relief but now they've introduced two more "funny" characters and it cheapened it at times.

My last critique is that unless you enjoy the first film and have watched it recently I don't think you'll enjoy Now You See Me 2 as much. It requires you to remember a lot which was OK for me as I have seen the original a few times but for a casual viewer you are left asking a few questions. So in the end, if you didn't like the first one, you won't like this. For me it wasn't quite as neat and shiny as the Now You See Me but entertaining enough.

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

Roland Emmerich's worst.

[5/10 · 29 June 2016]

Following the trend of making sequels to blockbusters from decades gone, Independence Day: Resurgence takes place twenty years after the original and brings back one or two of the original cast to play alongside a bunch of newbies at this alien-busting lark. First off, I really enjoy 1996's Independence Day, it's a pure 90s summer movie and a Roland Emmerich classic so I was a little hesitant when hearing of a sequel. But now I've seen it let's go over some things.

I'll start, as I always do, with what I liked. I always love an alien movie so I really enjoyed seeing them here. Although a bit underused at times the alien parts of the film were by far the most interesting; they also built on what we already knew about them which was cool to see what they did with that. On the human side of course we have Jeff Goldblum back and he is a welcome sight to any pop culture fan; he delivers one or two memorable lines and in general is just a highlight. Apart from that I unfortunately have to say there isn't really anything else enjoyable about this film.

Independence Day: Resurgence is a complete and utter rush from beginning to end. Almost every line of dialogue in the first act was purely expositional. It would cut from one place to another giving you all this information about the world, all these new characters and various things that would go by so quick I didn't have time to get invested. There was no chance to breath, no sooner had it started we were getting huge action sequences and then it would go straight to another. This meant that quite a major piece of new information to this universe went by very abruptly; before I realised what this scene, which in hindsight should have been a bit more impacting, was trying to tell me, we had moved on to set up another action piece.

Characters weren't developed at all so I didn't feel anything for them when things happened. There were these three new characters, including Liam Hemsworth and they had this backstory but trying to keep track of everything and not having time to be with these characters I couldn't care less what happened to them; it was like watching strangers from afar. Two other characters were introduced and they were put together as some sort of comedy relief I guess but they fit more into a Pacific Rim sort of film. Now I like Pacific Rim a lot but there is a huge difference between that tone and the tone of the first Independence Day, which is what I was expecting here.

The first ID4 was exciting, it had likable characters, it had tense moments. We all remember the aliens being very imposing and threatening; that scene in the operation room showed us that just one could be very powerful but in this sequel they were relegated to mere CGI cannon fodder. Perhaps if this wasn't a sequel; if it was it's own thing, I would have enjoyed it more. But because it is such departure tonally and leaves behind any sort of practical effects for CGI it just felt really rushed and it ended very abruptly trying to get a third film going.

In the end Independence Day: Resurgence had a few highlights here and there but this time the king of disaster movies, Roland Emmerich, a man whose work I enjoy (yes, even 2012), has brought just a meaningless, disappointing sequel.

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

Mostly well-done with one of the best villains of the franchise. One or two flaws.

[8/10 · 2 June 2016]

So X-Men: Apocalypse is either the third, sixth, or ninth film in the series depending on how you're counting and stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence returning for a third time while bringing in new cast such as Oscar Isaac, Sophie Turner and Tye Sheridan. The basic plot is that an ancient, powerful mutant known as En Sabah Nur has awoken in the 80s and wants to "cleanse the earth" of the weak and so the X-Men must stop him.

As a whole, I like the X-Men franchise; despite it's bumps I've always felt it's had it's own vibe and personality and is different enough from other comic book universes such as the MCU and the not- so-connected DC properties. X-Men: Apocalypse continues in this and although shares similarities with other movie plots still feels like an X-Men movie. The stories we witness in this film are some of the finest we've seen in the franchise. The two biggest characters we've been following for years of course are Professor X and Magneto and each of them are so well-developed and incredible characters you know exactly what they are feeling and why they are where they are. Magneto's arc in this film is a highlight and from one particular scene in a forest you are hooked on his story and understand why he's doing the things he is. Professor X is great as the leader and strong-minded force who keeps the X-Men together and he really has some great scenes, especially towards the end. Another story in this movie is of course the one of the titular character himself, Apocalypse; his backstory in Ancient Egypt alone was a thrilling and well executed event and when you really see what he can do in the 80s I found him to be the most powerful and best villain they've had in the franchise. Just his voice, and mannerisms are so dark and menacing you really feel like he is an unstoppable threat.

Apart from those three, other character highlights were the young Jean Grey, Cyclops and Nightcrawler who fit well into the story and I really enjoyed seeing them, and then of course Quicksilver returning from Days of Future Past doing much more in the movie including one of the best scenes of any superhero movie, beating that of his previous. Everyone else did OK but weren't really used as much; Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique doesn't do quite as much as she has done and never has her own 'action piece' as it were and then three of the horsemen, Psylocke, Angel and Storm each had one particular shot that was cool but mostly stood around until the climax where they still didn't have too much screen time.

Effects wise, all the powers and abilities looked fantastic. There was a lot of CGI and green-screen during the climactic battle and for me personally I thought that all looked just fine. There were one or two specific shots which weren't particularly good in my eyes but that was it.

Some problems I had with the movie was that, as I said, some characters didn't really have much screen time and/or didn't really do anything at all (looking at you Jubilee) and then another thing isn't really a problem as it is the ninth X-Men-related movie but X- Men: Apocalypse requires you to know and remember quite a bit of the past films and this universe in general, so it makes it almost inaccessible completely to the general movie-going audience and unless you've seen at least five of the other films a lot will go over your head and seem out of place. And as a final negative point there were two scenes in particular that pushed the 12A (PG-13) rating to it's limits which will be fine for a lot of people but I think some will be quite surprised at how dark they went.

Other than that X-Men: Apocalypse is a really powerful and thrilling superhero movie, and for me one of the best in the series, not quite beating First Class as my favorite.

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Russo Brothers handle an ensemble excellently in another Marvel blockbuster but it wasn't without problems.

[8/10 · 5 May 2016]

Captain America: Civil War has been called "Avengers 3" by some people because of the amount of Avengers that star in the film and it's a valid observation...until you see the movie. Somehow the Russo Brothers, with this huge ensemble cast, dealing with the Avengers themselves, adapting an infamous comic book actually make it still feel like a Captain America movie - which is great! I mean don't get me wrong, you see a lot of other characters and I loved seeing a lot of other characters but it really worked well continuing Cap's story that was left off in The Winter Soldier, which I really enjoyed because Bucky Barnes was one of the most interesting things about that movie and I enjoyed seeing him progress here.

And talking of characters, there were quite a few to juggle about but the Russo's once again did an excellent job of not making it confusing or crowded. I'll just go through a few of them real quick. Captain America and Iron Man were great as always, Iron Man was not always his one-liner quip guy in this, he has a lot of stuff to deal with so it was interesting to see him in that light; now I went into this movie on the side of a particular team but boy if you don't start questioning your loyalties during this movie then something's wrong; there were points being made that actually made me see the other guy's side so I was happy to see both sides presented equally, after all it is a Civil War. Black Panther gets his movie debut here and what an introduction it was, he is a fantastic character who I cannot wait to see again, his motives were solid and clear and his third-party angle to the war made it really intriguing to watch, definitely looking forward to seeing Chadwick Boseman in his own Black Panther film. The two sidekicks, as it were, Falcon and War Machine were great to see again and do a lot more plot-wise I think so it was nice to see everyone used really well. Vision and Wanda were fine in their roles again, I think I preferred them in Age of Ultron for some reason, they just seemed more interesting then whereas here, although they were great to see again, I didn't feel as invested in their characters as I was others. Ant-Man was fun to see too and boy do we see him, I'm obviously not going to spoil anything here but he was definitely one of my favorite parts of the movie.

Now during all this Civil Waring there is actually a villain in the movie and for me, he was one of the best villains Marvel have done in their Cinematic Universe; I felt his motives were valid, his intelligence was shown very well and his scenes were just really interesting to me.

Just before I get into what I wasn't such a fan of I'll mention Spider-Man. Tom Holland is a great actor and does a great job in this, it was really cool to see Spider-Man interact with the Avengers and see him do his stuff. That being said, this Spider-Man was not quite what I was expecting; I don't read the comics so from just a movie-going viewer with the past five Spidey movies to go on, this incarnation was quite different in the way of how they handled him. I've been told it was the most comic-accurate Spider-Man and the best version they've seen of him on screen so I have no place to complain but for me it was a little jarring to see such a change from what I was used too. But I did of course enjoy seeing him on screen and really look forward to seeing him again.

Now some things I wasn't so struck on. The first action piece; a battle near the very start of the movie just seemed off for some reason. I don't know what it was but it just didn't flow for me, I didn't enjoy who they were fighting and although it does set up something important a lot of it felt unnecessary. The first quarter of the film I'd say was very much a going from set-up to set-up sort of thing and was a little shaky script wise but the plot eventually straightened and it was great. Another negative I have was that once or twice the CGI was quite noticeable, in some of the action scenes and particularly Vision sometimes it wasn't great. And then something that wasn't necessarily wrong with the film but those darn trailers again. We'd go to one location and I'd instantly recognise it from the trailer so I knew what was going to happen, and that occurred nearly every time they went somewhere else; not all the time mind you, but quite a lot I was already knowing what scene this was leading up to.

In the end Marvel roll out another blockbuster with one of the best ensemble casts and an investing, emotional story. For me it wasn't the best film they've done but a real strong shot from the Russo Brothers and set's up a lot of cool characters for the future.

The Jungle Book (2016)

Wonderfully original while still familiar...but not without problems.

[7/10 · 20 April 2016]

Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book is about the seventh film adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's book and we already know it certainly isn't the last. So how does this one fare?

As with most people, I grew up watching the 1967 animation and fell in love with it, so I was a little irked when I learnt they were going to make, what I thought, would be a frame-for-frame remake, but thankfully I was wrong! 2016's The Jungle Book, although takes a number of ques from Disney's famous classic, is certainly not tied to it; this is it's own thing and does well for it. I enjoyed the fact that I didn't quite know what was going to happen next, and seeing where Mowgli's adventure took him kept my interest; so on a plot standpoint it is familiar on a basic level but with new elements and expanded story lines it felt new and original with a bit of nostalgia sprinkled in places.

I do of course have to mention the cast; they were all wonderful in their roles and superb to listen to but I do want to highlight three. Bill Murray is a fantastic Baloo which shouldn't surprise anyone, he delivers some great lines and he's such a likable character, I really enjoyed his performance. Idris Elba plays a very menacing villain as Shere Khan and certainly gives this version of the character a very unlikable bully-type personality which worked well, although it took me a while to stop picturing Elba himself as I watch a lot of his live-action work. And then for me one of the most fascinating and unnerving characters was Christopher Walken as King Loui, he was so well suited to the role I always wanted to see more of him, the character had a huge powerful presence on screen and I enjoyed that a lot. On a side note, Neel Sethi did a top-notch job as Mowgli with a few moments where you could see he wasn't sure where to look for these CGI animals but for the majority he did exceptionally well for his first film and especially one of this sort with very little to act with.

I just want to quickly mention the music now; the score is absolutely fantastic, from the very opening scenes giving you a rush of familiarity to the wonderful new sounds John Debney scores over the jungle, it was really a pleasure to listen to. Now the music also segways into some problems I had with the movie...

I don't think it's a spoiler to say that a few songs from Disney's animated classic make it into this movie, but I'd like to say I enjoyed the first one they did as it was more of a bantering back- and-forth type of singing without going full musical which I think works better in this live-action setting; the second song they did though I didn't feel flowed as well, almost jarring to a point as it seemed a little off, but that's just me personally. And the third one was my favorite but that wasn't present during the film itself, so sit back and enjoy some of the credits when you watch.

Another negative for me personally was some of the portrayal of this world. They had super-realistic animals doing sometimes very animal behaviours and and they cleverly combined that with some of the script and humour but once or twice the cartoony sequences I felt didn't quite gel with the visual realism I was seeing.

In the end, The Jungle Book was a fun movie with great story, character and music but had one or two moments of iffy CGI and creative choices. I think it will definitely be the definitive 'Jungle Book' for a lot of kids and look forward to seeing the announced sequel and Andy Serkis' take on the book in a few years.