the-timelord-victorious Reviews

Skyfall (2012)

Nobody Does It Better Than James Bond!

[10/10 · 27 October 2012]

After the Luke warm reception of 'Quantum of Solace', and various MGM financial troubles, there was doubt in some peoples minds whether SKYFALL, or 'Bond 23′ as it was referred to then, would actually be made. However, 4 years down the line, SKYFALL just proves that James Bond can always make a triumphant return.

After trying to retrieve a stolen hard drive, James Bond (Daniel Craig), is accidentally shot down by field agent Eve Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), and plummets into to the depths of a ravine, presumed dead. A terrorist attack on MI6 rocks the Secret Service and M is brought into questioning by Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who questions her ability to run the Service, after the contents of the hard drive are still in enemy hands. Hearing about the terrorist attack on British soil, James Bond returns to aid M, and track down the villainous Silva (Javier Bardem), who appears to have a blood lust for Bonds beloved boss.

The plot is brilliantly straight forward, and more importantly, takes it's time. At 2 hours 20 minutes, SKYFALL is one of the longest films in the franchise, and it feels long. That isn't a complaint either. The problem most people had with Casino Royale was it's pacing issues in the final act. However, despite minor pacing issues in the first 45 minutes of the film, Skyfall does nothing of the sort. It feels satisfying, which is probably the most important aspect, considering the reception of it's predecessor.

If you all thought Casino Royale was the most human portrayal of James Bond's character, think again. Not only does Skyfall go deeper, it also allows us to see Bond's traumatic childhood. Daniel Craig manages, fantastically, to bring an even more vulnerable side to the character, be it his inability to complete an exercise programme, desperately trying to hang on to the bottom of an elevator, or failing to miss in target practice. This isn't the James Bond we know, this is James Bond recovering from substance abuse and depression, which isn't just a way of making him more human, it's a way of challenging whether James Bond is relevant for todays world.

Sam Mendes (Director of American Beauty and Road To Perdition) is not an action director, which is why Skyfall is such a remarkable achievement. Not only does Mendes bring depth and character, but also manages to show breathtaking action sequences, which is easily some of the best stunt work to date. Mendes also manages to fantastically intercut action and drama, a prime example being Bond running through the streets of London, intercut with M's reading of a Tennyson poem

We are not now that strength which in old days

Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;

One equal temper of heroic hearts,

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Another master stroke for this film, was the casting of Oscar Winner, Javier Bardem, who turns in a completely, camp, hilarious, but genuinely chilling performance as Raoul Silva. Who isn't even a match for Bond, in fact, the brilliance of the film totally resides to how far ahead Silva always is. He is completely underestimated, and surprisingly always has the upper hand. "What makes you think this is my first time?" Bond quips, as Silva seductively unbuttons Bonds shirt and stokes his bare chest. Craig and Bardem play at each other with great effect, which makes it difficult to even consider who steals which scene.

It's Silva's total calmness that makes him all the more chilling. "You're hurt? What have they done to you?" he asks, spotting a bloody wound, on a terrified M. "Finish it for both of us.", as he pulls her in for a tight hug and forces a gun into her hand, in one of the most moving, and tense scenes in the franchises history. With shades of Max Zorin, and Francisco Scaramanga, Silva will go down in history as one of the best Bond villains of all time.

Skyfall also marks the long awaited return of Q, now played by British actor Ben Whisaw. Which shows us that we don't need gadgets anymore to make Bond contemporary. The entire film is beautifully written, delivering snappy dialogue and totally oozing dry wit and good old British humour, made more hilarious by Craig, as he delivers the humour dead pan.

The whole thing roars along like a speeding bullet, with beautiful cinematography by Roger Deakins. And despite a few fishy moments of CGI (Which doesn't even detract from the overall enjoyment anyway) the film is perfect. One of the most remarkable achievements in the film, consists of the beautiful relationship between Bond and M, in which Judi Dench is finally given the chance to show her remarkable acting ability. At the heart of the story lies a tragic and motherly relationship, which doesn't fail to bring a tear to the eye once everything is brought full circle.

Skyfall is a film that isn't scared to stray away from the iconic Bond formula. From the opening strains of the Bond theme, as Craig steps into the light in a dimly lit corridor, we can tell that this is not a traditional Bond film. In fact, what Mendes manages to do well, is still incorporate classic elements (The Aston Martin DB5, the James Bond theme, and opening closing gunbarrel sequence), but at the same time, willingly force upon you a fantastic, emotional, gripping, tense and down right hilarious film, that proves that still, after 50 years, nobody does it better than James Bond.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Astonishing!

[9/10 · 21 July 2012]

I would've posted this review sooner, but it's taken me a while to get over how brilliant it is, so I can judge it on it's own merits. There's a lot to like about this film, and I've been racking my brains for a while thinking about what's not to like, but I've came to the conclusion that there's hardly anything. The film is brilliant, and it's probably the strongest entry of the trilogy.

Everything in this movie is near perfect, from the cinematography, to the pacing (Which puts it leagues above The Dark Knight straight away), to the genuinely heartbreaking scenes involving Bruce Wayne and his faithful butler Alfred. I can honestly say that I've never cried so much in a film in my entire life. Every scene involving Michael Caine is just heart wrenching, and the last half of the film is beyond excellent.

Christian Bale puts in a brilliant performance as Bruce Wayne, which in my opinion in his strongest to date. The thing I liked about this film most though, is the fact that it hasn't followed in the footsteps of 'The Dark Knight', and went down more of a 'Batman Begins' route. This is Bruce Wayne and Gotham central, which in itself is a perfect way to wrap up the series. Then we have the fact that this is not a superhero movie, far from it. This is probably the most real and down to earth Batman film you'll see and what the film manages to do, is maintain such a strong and personal connection to the characters and at the same time and give it such a massive scope. The thing that struck me the most though. is that this is not a conventional Batman film, and more like an extremely character driven art house film. It deals mostly with Gotham without a hero, and I think thats where the most successful aspect lies. I also love that this is Bruce Wayne central. Batman is hardly ever featured, and I really do feel that this was a very risky, but wise move. It was very important that it focused on the Bruce Wayne character, because that's where the true heart and emotion lives.

As mentioned before, I found it really difficult to find flaws in this film. It does have a few plot holes but you know what? It really doesn't matter. The film is so strong in it's own right that I can gladly overlook it's flaws. I found Bane a tad underused, but I think the fact that The Dark Knight Rises focuses more on loss, and the people of Gotham adjusting to a world without Batman, then It makes sense for him to be confined to the background.

I can't really make up my mind whether or not I prefer this to Batman Begins, but it's definitely on par, and I've never once been thus emotional connected to a film, so I have a feeling that this could very well be my favourite chapter in the trilogy. I'm not going to say that I've loved The Dark Knight Trilogy over the years. I've only just recently rediscovered Batman Begins, I really didn't think much of it the first time, but soon entered my top 10 film list. While I really enjoy The Dark Knight, I still think it's very flawed, but now that the series has concluded. I am feeling an overwhelming sense of loss. So thank you Christopher Nolan, for restoring my faith in cinema, and taking the time to deliver and intelligent and exciting range of films.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Enjoyable but extremely redundant.

[6/10 · 8 July 2012]

I have to admit after seeing the trailers and publicity for this movie, I wasn't exactly hyped for it. Although, once the reviews came in I actually thought to myself "Actualy, this could be quite good. Enjoyable anyway." I was half right. It was very enjoyable, but the main problem with this film is, it just feels completely and utterly redundant.

You see, i'm in the minority who actually does rather like the first 3. Well, I say 'first 3'. I thought the third was atrociously bad, but I can watch the first two and still be rather entertained. When it was confirmed that the franchise would be rebooted though, I immediately thought "This is far too early for a reboot, it's too soon, it just feels like they're trying to cash in on the darker rebooted superhero movies." and that's pretty much exactly what they've done. The entire plot just feels like a rehash from 10 years ago, just told differently. If this was the first Spider-Man film in 15 years or something, you know, just enough to time to let the last trilogy settle, then I wouldn't really have a problem with it. But it just feels really unnecessary. Then there's the whole thing about this movie being 'The Untold Story', which after the credits roll, still remains untold. There's virtually nothing learnt about the death of Parkers parents. It's just used as a way to bring Lizard into it.

If they just made this 'Spider-Man 4' and didn't bother with the whole reboot thing, it would've had more time to expand on the death of his parents, and actually bring some form of mystery into it, then it would've probably been a very good film. It's like they tried to do a 'Batman Begins' and lost their nerve 20 minutes in and turned it into another Spiderman film and not something new and interesting.

Oh, and by the way, the 3D is awful. I really wanted a 2D showing but 3D was the only one available. I'm not exaggerating when I say this, but I sat with the glasses off for most of the film and it made no difference. I'm not a fan of 3D anyway, but it does give a sense of... joy when something flies out the screen at you, as bad and pointless as it is. With this it just felt that I was sitting watching a 2D film with glasses on.

The thing is though, I did enjoy it. It was a good waste of a few hours, but there's nothing really original in it. Although the cast was great. I honestly did find Andrew Garfield marvellous. He's definitely so much better in the role than Toby Maguire, and really did bring some sense of danger and menace to it. The thing with Garfied is, is that he has this great screen presence and can carry a movie totally on his own. He's brought so much believability and realism to it, that you can't help but be taken in by his performance. Although, I enjoyed the scenes with Peter more than I did with Spider-Man. Even though I found this movie really redundant, I did feel that Garfield was definitely the strongest aspect of it, and despite my feelings on this movie, part of me really is looking forward to the next one, mainly because of Garfields performance and how uplifting the ending is.

Overall a good waste of a few hours. Very nice performances and a good cast, but at the end of the day, just a pointless rehash.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Overrated but enjoyable!

[7/10 · 26 June 2012]

Now, let me start by saying that I have, and always will think The Dark Knight is overrated. I think the only reason it got so much attention was because of the whole publicity around Heath Ledger etc. Let me say, if Ledger were still alive, I feel the film would probably perform well, but really not as much as it did. So yeah, with this in mind I sat down this afternoon to watch it. It's grown on me a bit since last viewing, but I still think it's very overrated. I've said this a lot in the past, but Nolans trilogy just isn't Batman to me. I see them as very well written action movies. I just don't feel he's captured the look and feel of what Batman is supposed to be (For me anyway, this is my opinion). It's very strange though, since I prefer Batman Begins, to something that can be considered more traditional Batman (Joker etc), but anyway, I find The Dark Knight to be a very well written, and entertaining film. Heath Ledger is, one of the strongest aspects of the movie, and even though he's not my favourite Joker (I have to say that I prefer Jack Nicholsen and Mark Hammil), he put forward a very good performance. Gary Oldman is fantastic once again as Commissioner Gordon, and Michael Caine delivers a rather small, but unforgettable role as Alfred.

Overall, The Dark Knight is very enjoyable, the action set pieces are stunning, and the dialogue is beautifully delivered (Except "WHEREE ISS HEEE!?!?!?! and "I'M NOT WEARINGG HOCKKEYYY PANNNNTTTSS! and "THEN YOU'RE GONNA LOVE ME!", but we'll get to that later) Despite how much I enjoyed it though, I still think the movie is just a bit too long and has a few pacing issues. I think the pacing of Batman Begins was pitch perfect, and I feel that The Dark Knight dragged quite a bit in places, especially the Hong Kong scene, which i didn't think added anything to the final film, and a totally forgettable sequence. I thought Two Face, even though a good villain, was un-needed. His scenes could've easily been cut, and made his reveal into some kind of cliffhanger for The Dark Knight Rises. I just don't think his character was that well developed to be honest. I wasn't that much of a fan of him, but it was a nice performance all the same. I also don't know the reason as to why Katie Holmes didn't return to the part of Rachel Dawes, but I felt that Maggie Gyllenhaal was a very worthy replacement, ALTHOUGH it would've had a lot more emotional impact to have the same actress in both parts considering what happens.

It's very strange actually, because I thought that Christian Bale was the strongest aspect of Batman Begins, and here I feel he is one of the weakest. I don't really care for Bruce Wayne that much, maybe that's intentional. I know he's an international playboy type character, but I'm just not a fan. I really enjoyed his performance in Batman Begins a lot, and I thought his performance in The Dark Knight was a bit disappointing. I also spent the entire movie getting constantly more and more annoyed at his Batman voice. It's completely unnecessary and there's no reason why he just couldn't speak normally, he did in Batman Begins. Although. I'm not going to blame Bale for this, because apparently it was an editing decision made in post production.

The Dark Knight is littered with beautiful scenes and lovely dialogue. It's definitely a strong film in it's own right, despite it's flaws, and it has managed (Along with Batman Begins) to heighten my excitement for The Dark Knight Rises (Which I really wasn't that interested in seeing).

Aliens (1986)

SO Overrated!

[5/10 · 26 June 2012]

So yeah, where do I start? First of all, I'd like to say that I absolutely love 'Alien', it's a brilliant, tense and exciting film. Easily a solid 5 star for me. And after watching the constantly praised follow up, I've came to the conclusion that 'Aliens' is the equivalent to 'Terminator 2' to 'The Terminator'. The only difference is, that T2 was actually a good film. I feel like I've wasted a good 2 hours of my life, and I have no doubt in my mind that 'Aliens' is one of the most overrated movies in existence.

The first thing that threw me off, and it is a very minor thing, so I'm not going into too much detail, is that we first find out that Ripley has awoken nearly 60 years after the events of Alien. This is fine, but my problem is, why announce this important piece of information in a dream? To my knowledge this was the first time we were told about the time jump, so wouldn't it be more PRUDENT to mention it in the 'real world' just to stop confusing people whether or not this happened or not.

Anyway, yes, the first 35 minutes of this are surprisingly good. I really enjoyed the hearing sequence, and I find it possibly the strongest scene in the entire movie. Once we get to the base though, I think this is where the film starts to go dramatically down hill, and this is why. I just don't care. I sat for 2 hours in that film, not caring about what was happening, not because I didn't want to, it was because it was unegaging and boring. First of all we're introduced to a group of Squad members, who are probably the most annoying group of people I've ever seen on screen. I'm not even going to waste my time talking about Blake, Husdon and Vasques. The first two really could've been the same character and the third spends the entire movie standing around dramatically looking like a really muscular Halle Berry.

Bar Ripley, Cameron has given us virtually no emotional connection to any of these characters. There were moments where soldiers were dying every 5 minutes and I just didn't care, and the fact that I didn't care completely took me out of the film, and made every bit of character motivation for me annoying, because I just couldn't feel it. No matter how urgent or how dangerous the characters tell me this entire situation is, it just doesn't feel threatening, and this is probably the worst thing about the film. The best thing about 'Alien' is that you did feel emotionally involved, it had genuine suspense and atmosphere, with 'Aliens' the entire thing has just been lost, there's virtually nothing in there at all to set this apart from other horror/action movies. The only startling imagery in the entire thing, was the scene involving the dead bodies cacooned in the cieling, and the woman turning out to be alive. This was quickly ruined however, by the obvious 'chest bursting scene', which I knew was coming and was waiting for it. The problems with most sequels is that half of the time they want to try something very new and inventive, and the other half of the time, they just repeat themselves. I had no doubt in my mind that a chest bursting scene would happen. Saying that though, I did enjoy the scene at the start, but I knew since when that happened Cameron was pretty much like "Ah nahh, I'm just kidding, wait for later!", so I spent the entire movie up to then, just expecting it, which I wouldn't of done if I actually was emotionally involved in the movie, which I wasn't, because this is pretty much something else that Cameron has ruined with his generic direction.

To me 'Aliens' pretty much consisted of one absurd action scene after another. I felt totally uninvolved, and the entire movie just had no heart at all. There's no sense of terror, no sense of claustrophobia, which I have to add the first film did incredibly well. It's just… nonsense, with no emotional centre. I really did enjoy Sigourney Weavers performance though, even though I found it a little wooden in places. Other than that, I think she did a good job, and I was thankfull they kept her as the prominent main character and at the front of all the action. Other than that, very disappointing. How people see this as the 'definitive' Alien film is beyond me.

The Woman in Black (2012)

Chilling and Imaginative.

[7/10 · 26 June 2012]

After seeing this in the cinema, and really enjoying it upon first watch, I felt inclined to pick this up on DVD. I think what's so marvellous about this film, is that James Watkins has successfully managed to capture such a chilling and uneasy atmosphere. The Victorian setting works extremely well, and is the perfect era for a good old fashioned ghost story.

I've always felt that one of the best elements of a horror film is suggestion (creaking floorboards, sounds etc), and to an extent, this film has done it remarkably. It's very refreshing to see a horror film that relies on psychological terror, rather than in your face blood and gore, something that has sadly became one of the main conventions of a horror movie. Yes, the jump moments were a little predictable, but they had an extremely nice build up, and at some points, did genuinely unnerve me. This film takes the expected, and predicable, and something that has been done so many times before, and totally makes it look refreshing.

BUT, I think that it lost it's footing towards the end. it didn't ruin it, but I think it became a lot less terrifying, simply because It almost abandoned the suggestive and started to become a lot less scarier. It's like Watkins lost some of his nerve and tried to give us more by showing us what the Woman In Black actually looked like, and because of this, I think the film lost something. This is very upsetting, because if Watkins had relied more on suggestion, and gave us glimpses of the Woman in Black, and made it more psychological, which, in his defence, he did do right up until the 'screaming window' sequence, I think it probably would've been one of my favourite films.

Daniel Radcliffe may not be the best actor in the world, far from it, but he is simply wonderful in this film. What I love most about his performance is that he really has tried to distance himself from the role of Harry Potter, and this has worked to a massive degree. I never once thought of anything to do with Harry Potter during the course of this film, I simply saw Radcliffe in another role, and I feel that this is such a massive accomplishment for such a young actor, and considering Hallows Part 2 was not even a year ago, he has done a really really good job. Another thing about his performance, is that he does it to the best of his ability, there's a lot of physical acting required in this film, by which I mean facial expressions and trying to convey a massive amount of vulnerability and terror without speaking, and this is I feel one of the hardest things for an actor to do. It's hard enough for actors to successfully pull the audience into the film, and act scared around other characters, but to do it completely on your own, that is a huge resonsibility for a young actor, and I think Radcliffe pulled it off perfectly.

Overall, it's a fantastic ghost story, only ruined by the antagonist stepping out the shadows and showing herself. Like I said, if we didn't see her face, and she stayed under the vale, then this film would've been a solid 4 star for me. It's very very high quality overall though, and one of the very few films that still remains to unnerve me.

The Terminator (1984)

A massive accomplishment!

[9/10 · 26 June 2012]

The Terminator is a perfect example of what James Cameron can do with a limited budget, and when he's not relying on special effects. There's lovely bits of character development littered through it as well, not in your face back story, just stuff that make the characters a bit more human (well bar Arnie obviously). I think what makes it such a great film is the fact that it doesn't rely on massive special effects to make it good. They really do play a back seat role, and the fact that it's just a really simple narrative makes it work very well. It's more of a violent game of cat and mouse, with a massively overshadowing sense of no hope. The plot is well thought out, and the characters are very believable. There's no doubt in my mind that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a terrible, terrible actor, but the thing about him in the Terminator series is that you just don't care. The main reason being is that he's playing a cyborg, and isn't supposed to show any emotion. I think what this film managed to do very well, which I think lacked in all the other films, is the genuinely chilling atmosphere. I think the soundtrack plays a really big part in this, it sounds like a violent, orchestrated game boy soundtrack. There's something just so fitting about it.

I really love Judgement Day, and find it the best in the series, for the mere fact that it feels a lot more entertaining, and even though it's a massive blockbuster movie, Cameron (before he got bad) managed to perfectly balance action and drama. The first one however, I think is a massive accomplishment and I part of me loves just how independent it looks. It was made with a budget of 6 million, and I really do feel that more movies today would benefit from having a really stripped back budget, just so they can concentrate on character development and atmosphere rather than shooting and explosions and putting everything on the screen with SFX.

True Grit (2010)

Asbsoloutely brilliant.

[10/10 · 19 February 2011]

Ever since playing Red Dead Redemption, I've began to find Western movies very interesting. So, when I first heard about this film, It was definitely a must see for me. It didn't disappoint in the slightest. I haven't seen the original movie, so I can't compare, but for what it is, this film is outstanding. Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon give excellent performances, and I'm usually not keen on Damon. The storyline is brilliant, and very atmospheric. A lovely, character driven film. There's some very touching scenes, which don't feel forced in the slightest. The Coen Brothers certainly know how to draw out some lovely performances, and the cinematography in this was brilliant.

Overall, a fantastic film. Highly recommended.

Saw 3D (2010)

Weak entry. Mildly satisfying closure.

[6/10 · 20 November 2010]

So, it finally comes to an end. I can't make up my mind whether this was good or bad. I loved the return of Doctor Gordon, but the twist was rather noneffective considering he only pops up in the movie twice. I didn't like how Jigsaw was only in one scene. I didn't like how Jill has been turned into a damsel in distress. Nor, do I like how bad the effects are. But, the last act of the film is quite strong. I loved Hoffman in the police station, it was rather cool. The twist was entertaining, but as I said before, non affective.

This is pretty much all I say. A weak entry with a mildly satisfying closure. Please don't make another one.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

A stunning film!

[8/10 · 20 November 2010]

I've always been a massive fan of the Harry Potter series, but I felt the series really lost something after Goblet of Fire. Order of the Phoenix and The Half Blood Prince were decent entries to the series, but they felt rather dull and uninspired. Though I found the final act of Half Blood Prince fantastic, and probably the best final half hour of the series. Now, we come to Deathly Hallows part one. My biggest concern with this, prior to the screening was the idea of David Yates directing. I personally find him rather boring, BUT with Deathly Hallows he actually hits the nail on the head. There's some really awkward moments, but overall it's more than a solid entry to the series. The reason I think Yates has made a success of this is because it's so different. It's a road movie. No Hogwarts. No Teachers. No Dumbledore. No safety. It's fantastic.

Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson really do give their best performances of the series. Plus, we FINALLY get the Harry Potter theme music in an action cue. Something I've always wanted to hear. The first 20 minutes are absolutely delicious, though I would've like to see more of the Dursleys. I always wanted to see the moment where Vernon, Petunia and Dudley come to an understanding with Harry. There's some really brilliant and touching scenes present in Hallows. I especially loved the scenes set in and around Godric's Hollow as well, one of the highlights of the movie for me. I really enjoyed the mini pre-titles sequence, too. Beautifully directed. It was brilliant to see Alan Rickman also, even if it was for a few minutes. Severus Snape is my favorite character in the entire series, and during his entire scene I was sitting with an insane grin on my face. I'm glad to say he didn't feel missed at all, though. The film flowed perfectly. Some reviews I read stated that they found most of the countryside stuff boring. I'm the complete opposite, I actually thought the scenes were a refreshing change from the usual Hogwarts locations. In fact, most of the cinematography was stunning.

Overall, a fantastic entry to the series, one of the best. There was some stuff the film makers decided not to include that bugged me, but they were quite faithful to the book overall, so I'm alright with it. Eagerly awaiting Part Two.

Let the Right One In (2008)

A stylish and beautiful piece of filmmaking.

[9/10 · 26 October 2010]

I've always felt that foreign films were a massive step up from the mainstream and generic Hollywood films out industry has been churning out of late. We've had robots, and aliens and vampires. They may all tell some kind of story, but nothing really stands out for me as far as they go. I felt 'Let The Right One In' was a breath of fresh air, complete with a brilliant narrative and fantastic performances. The story follows a young boy called Oskar, who is bullied enormously but just doesn't stand up for himself, something I feel anyone in this situation could relate to. Oskar soon meets Eli, a young, mysterious girl who is harbouring a very dark secret. Yes, she's a vampire. All of you who have just rolled your eyes at this revelation don't fret. Eli is no Edward Cullen, in fact she is nothing like him. As far as this film goes, it bears no similarity to the Twilight Saga what so ever. Something this film does really well is capture the childhood innocence present in Oskar, and in addition, the experience of Eli's character. Striking a massive contrast between both characters.

The film itself has been described as a romantic horror film and the best thing about it, is that it doesn't follow the generic codes and conventions of both genres. The characters love isn't clichéd in the least and the story follows the story of Oskar, rather than Eli, whereas in most romantic films we follow the female character. I felt this decision was brilliant, it really allows the audience to make their own interpretation regarding Eli, who tends to provide the narrative present within the film, and gives the movie a sense of urgency and mystery.

In terms of performance Kare Hedebrant and Linda Leandersson are fantastic in their portrayal of Oskar and Eli, and merely create magic on screen together with brilliant chemistry. They also seem to bounce off each other, delivering believable dialogue and tackling situations very realistically. Which is very important, considering the story of the film relies heavily on realism in order to make it work.

The soundtrack I felt was fantastic, Johan Soderqvist provides us with a very imaginative score. Perfectly balancing both the horror and romance present in the film. In some places the soundtrack tends to be very haunting, providing us with the right amount of suspense to keep us glued to the screen. Soderqvist tends to keep the 'jump music' to a minimum, a severe contrast to Hollywood, who tend to overuse this quite a lot, to scare the audience. This just proves how imaginative the film is on the whole, the real horror in this film doesn't lie in the fantastic soundtrack, but instead, the most horrifying aspect in the whole movie is just how realistic some parts are. The performances are top notch, and situations are dealt with such care, that it actually makes us question what's just happened, and allows us to draw our own conclusion.

Overall, Tomas Alfredso has delivered a stylish and very dark thriller, the cinematography is stunning. A modern masterpiece.

Buried (2010)

Terrific Film!

[9/10 · 15 October 2010]

Easily one of the most imaginative and brilliantly crafted films of this year. Everything in this film is perfect. The lighting, the camera angles, the plot. Brilliantly driven and acted. I found myself on the edge of my seat quite a few times, and felt I could relate to the simple fact that most humans are useless in a crisis. This is not just a film about a man in a box, it's so much more than that. It's full of depth and story. Some say they found the film very claustrophobic but I felt oddly soothed by the whole affair. I actually dropped off for a few seconds on several occasions. Not because the film is boring, far from it in fact. It's just full of natural sounds, which were really relaxing, in an odd way.

It also came to my attention that some people just don't know what a good film is. They just can't appreciate anything different. The cinema was full of fat and scruffy teenagers, expecting to be scared. They ended up disappointed due to the lack of blood and gore. After the film finished, all I heard was profanity. The film was awful apparently. To tell you the truth, it's one of the best films of 2010. It's different and imaginative, and just such a massive step up from the generic movies the film industry is churning out at the moment.

I loved the soundtrack as well, the opening titles were quite Hitchcockian.

Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010)

They should've ended it at the third one. Utter trash.

[1/10 · 10 September 2010]

I've always enjoyed the Resident Evil movies, I know they're far from being Oscar worthy material, but overall they've been entertaining one way or another. The first was great, Apocalypse was alright, Extinction was great, if not on par with the first. Afterlife however, is just awful.

Who the HELL is the Executioner? and who created him? Why is Afterlife full of pointless slow motion shots? Why does Alice never show any emotion at all? Why is she making a video diary for half an hour? Why do the zombies have weird tentacles? Yes, I know that they're from Resident Evil 5 but honestly, it's never explained. Why are they here? Why is Wesker dressed like The Terminator? Where is Jill Valentine? She was credited but I'm positive that she wasn't even in the damn thing. Why does Clare disappear for half an hour? Oh, and probably the most important question of all, who in the right mind hires composers under the name 'TomandAndy' to compose a movie like this?

Also, I love how confident they are about a sequel. They even left the damn thing on a cliffhanger. Probably one of the worst cliffhangers I've ever seen. The only redeeming feature I can actually think of in this garbage is Milla Jovovich and even she isn't on top form.

Overall, probably one of the worst films I've ever seen. Bad acting. Bad writing. Bad dialogue. Utterly pointless. They should've stopped at Extinction.

The Expendables (2010)

BrillIANT popcorn movie!

[8/10 · 18 August 2010]

This is without a doubt one of the cheesiest action films ever made. But my god, I love it. Stallone is brilliant, even though he can't act, but I don't care. I went to see this merely to be entertained. I didn't want a deep and meaningfully story line, nor did I want to be emotionally involved with any of the characters. If anyone wanted to be, then they would've been gravely disappointed. This is a perfect summer popcorn movie, and I wouldn't have wanted anything else from it, really. I loved the Arnie joke as well. I felt that was very well timed.

I thought the playful tension between Stallone and Arnies characters was a nice touch, also. Considering they were basically rivals in the 80's, made this a very amusing scene to watch.

The action was great, the acting was terrible, but I really feel that this was a nice throwback to the 80's. Nothing like a good action film. Overall, THE EXPENDABLES, I found to be, highly entertaining, CGI-lite and just bloody good fun.

Salt (2010)

Who IS Salt? Nothing too special.

[6/10 · 8 August 2010]

A decent enough movie. It didn't strike me as anything special though. The action was great, as was Jolie, but overall it was quite uneventful.

I wasn't expecting much from this at all anyway, so it's not like I'm let down or anything, In fact, It was a lot better than I expected it to be. The trailers for this put me off big time. It looked godawful. Fortunately, this wasn't the case. It could've been a lot better, and the first half was definitely the strongest. It started off great, but I really did feel that it lost it's footing half way through.

Nothing awful, but nothing fantastic either. I'll go and see the sequel though. This was a fun enough ride.

Knight and Day (2010)

A genuinely fun flick.

[8/10 · 8 August 2010]

This is no where near a masterpiece, and I didn't expect it to be. This is a film that doesn't take itself seriously, and... it's great. I know this won't win any awards, and it doesn't deserve to. At the end of the day though, it's a movie that's supposed to entertain and it delivers. KNIGHT AND DAY is utterly hilarious, as well as having the perfect blend of action and comedy. I would give this one 5 stars, but there's two things that really bug me. The first 15 minutes really drag on, and when I say really, I mean REALLY. Once Cruise gets on that plane, the movie really picks up. The last 15 minutes are awful, and I absolutely HATED the dialogue reversal thing they did. Sure, a quote or two would be nice, referencing Roy and Junes time together, but an epic speech? No thanks. Overall though, this was bloody good fun. Cruise and Diaz make an unlikely couple, and Cruise himself makes this hilarious to watch. Oh, and I didn't understand the title. I get the Knight part, but who the hell is day?

I loved it. Highly recommended.

Toy Story 3 (2010)

A fitting end to one of the best Trilogy's of all time.

[10/10 · 30 July 2010]

I grew up with the TOY STORY series, and I've always been looking forward to this one, ever since 1999. I've always has such a great fondness for the characters, and I'm happy to say that this is no exception. As soon as the movie started, all of my childhood memories came flooding back to me. My fondness of the series never really disappeared, but I do admit that I haven't really revisited the first two movies that much. I've been looking forward to the third installment for ages, but it was only until recently that my true love for the series returned, which was due mainly to anticipation. I'm sure that during TOY STORY 3, the smile never really left my face. It was so magical to see these characters back on the big screen again. As I was watching, all I could think about was how much I've missed these characters over the past 11 years. I feel so connected to this series, which was why I was fighting back tears on several occasions. I'm so glad I didn't cry, because I wouldn't have stopped. I'm proud of myself for keeping it together.

The TOY STORY series has been there ever since I was 5 years old, and I've grown up with it. This film has seriously tugged at my heart strings. I found myself filling up at both sorrow, and happiness. I can't actually describe how brilliant the feeling was during watching this. To put is plainly, this film is absolutely beautiful. I adored everything about it.

No word of a lie, this film is a perfect ending to one of the best trilogies of all time. I'm in two minds about the idea of a sequel. I would love to see the characters again, but on the other hand, the ending fits perfectly. I think it's best to leave it there. I'm just full of praise for this, it's near perfect.

I only have one minor gripe about TOY STORY 3, and it's really minor. I wish Timothy Dalton was used more. That's it. The rest of the film is fantastic. I'm so happy that Pixar haven't messed this up. They've delivered a truly beautiful film.

Nanny McPhee Returns (2010)

Sadistic, but highly enjoyable!

[7/10 · 22 July 2010]

This film is SADISTIC. I'm not even joking. First of all we have a Nanny who bangs a large stick, forcing children to harm themselves, break ornaments and burn their fathers letters from the war. Secondly, we have a bunch of rather weird looking women, who wish to remove a characters kidneys, and then STUFF HIM. Thirdly, we have a mother who lets her children go near and unexploded bomb, THEN disarm it. Not too mention a character who makes children believe they've lost their father in the war. I mean, what the hell!? BUT. I bloody loved it. It was a good laugh. Nothing at all special, and nothing award worthy, but it was a fun watch. Emma Thompson was a riot. It's basically the same as the first, but very different at the same time. Nice twist as well, involving Maggie Smith, didn't see that one coming!

Cherrybomb (2009)

The Cherry has Bombed.

[3/10 · 21 July 2010]

Ever since I saw the trailer for this, I always thought it looked interesting. I've always liked Rupert Grint as an actor, and for me, he is the only positive factor in this mess of a film.

CHERRYBOMB is littered with annoying performances, and pointless characters, who sit around with no purpose. They have virtually no motivation at all, which sadly doesn't allow you to become emotionally connected to any of the characters. I couldn't care less about what happens to any of them. It's basically just a film full of smoking. Robert Sheehan is REALLY annoying. I don't know what it is about him, but his performance in this was really irritating. I won't spoil the film for those who haven't seen it, but it's meant to build up to something big. It's such a shame there's no build up at all. It's just loads of pointless scenes thrown together serving no purpose at all. At least Grint makes this film watchable, however awful it is itself. The only I actually really liked in this film, was the drunken montage near the end of the movie. I thought that was really well done. The ending I felt was well filmed as well, but like I said, I really don't care enough to be bothered by it.

Inception (2010)

Brilliant!

[10/10 · 16 July 2010]

Wow. Words cannot describe how jaw-droopingly BRILLIANT this film is. Everything about this movie is perfect. The depth, the running time, the soundtrack. Just, WOW.

This film is a modern masterpiece, no doubt. Christopher Nolan has done it again, and delivered a truly epic movie! Twice in a row. Clearly inspired by the Bond series, this IS Nolans Bond film. I really do hope he directs Bond 23 as well, because after tonight, this man can pull anything off.

Leonardo DiCaprio is fantastic! I've developed quite a liking for this guy lately. He's evolved from the cutey in Titanic to a fully established actor, who can do anything, take on so many different roles and be totally convincing in anything he does.

The action scenes are spot on as well. Not only can Nolan direct in such a brilliant fashion, he can also find the perfect mix between drama and action. Which is fantastic.

This movie deserves full marks. It's enjoyable, entertaining and so intriguing. A perfect mix between drama, suspense and action. Well done Mr Nolan.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Quantum of Soul-less?

[7/10 · 14 July 2010]

I don't really want this to be a review as such. I wouldn't mind it just summing up what I think of the movie. It's easier that way.

I really do think that Quantum of Solace is, in some places, a magnificent Bond film. There's a lot of beautiful and touching scenes present throughout. I absolutely adore the Bond and Yusseff scene, Forster got this spot on. The character building scenes in this movie are brilliant. I love the scenes between Bond and Mathis, especially. They have great chemistry together. I felt that Leiter was underused though. I loved the scenes between him and Bond in Casino Royale, it was such a shame that we didn't get much here.

I really do love Marc Forsters sense of direction. As much as people go on about how badly edited it is, which in some places is true, there's tons of brilliant shots in here. My only gripe is, is that they last for half a second. I would have no problem if Forster doubled the length of some of them, but that's his vision, and I respect that.

I have no problem at all with the Gunbarrel being at the end of the movie, I've said countless times that it shows how much Bonds story-arc is complete. He's over Vesper, and has his Quantum of Solace.

However, as much as I find the character building scenes more visually stunning that the action set pieces, I really do get the feeling that the movie is incomplete. I don't have a problem with what's there on the screen. I have a problem with what isn't there. After Casino Royale, this movie had SO MUCH potential, and it wasted it. Given a few extra months, this film could've been on par with Casino Royale. If only the film delved deeper, and got more under Bonds skin.

Now, I know that the writers strike played a massive part in this, so that's partly to blame for what we got. I do feel that the film would've benefited if Forster pushed back the release to May 2009, because, quite frankly, it feels rushed.

I don't have any problem with the action, it's the short running time that makes the movie seem like an action fest. I do think that the boat and plane chase could've been cut a bit though, but that's just me. Given the lack of narrative, it just seems pointless.

Daniel Craig puts in a brilliant performance once again as Bond. Totally love this guy. It would've been great to see at least another hour of him on screen though. I love how he moves and asserts himself in the role. He's the perfect Bond for the 21st Century. Cold. Ruthless, and charming.

Olga Kurlylenko is GORGEOUS, but I would've loved to see more of Camille, and more of Agent Fields for that matter. Mathieu Amalric makes a decent enough villain. I really think that he wasn't used to his full potential though. When the trailers were released, I thought he looked so menacing and creepy. It's just a shame that none of this was transferred on film. I love Dench, one of my personal favourite actresses. It just annoyed me that she had more screen time than the main villain. (Just think of that extra hour we should've had)

The only thing I hate about the movie, and I mean truly hate, is that bloody title song. I actually despise it. I would much prefer to hear a slow ballad, instead of that garbage. The Main Title Sequence is rather good though, and quite retro. MK12 did a pretty damn good job. It would've been interesting to see what Kleinment would bring to the table, though.

Arnolds score is average, I love Time to Get Out, and Field Trip, but that's about it. The rest is generic.

Overall though, I find this a very entertaining film. In my opinion, it's a bad sequel, but a great Bond movie. It had a lot to live up to, but at some points in the movie, I get the feeling that it didn't even try.

Predators (2010)

This film is a Predator to itself...

[3/10 · 8 July 2010]

I haven't really seen any of the original movies, so you could say that I'm quite new to the series. When the film started, I found it quite average, there's some beautiful cinematography, but that's about it. However, when we were introduced to the characters, and the first major action scene began, the film started to pick up. When the scene ended though, the whole film slowly began to go downhill again.

There's some really good scenes in this, don't get me wrong. I loved Isabelle's comparison to the humans of earth being Predators to their own race, I thought that was a rather nice touch. The rest of the film though, is, to put politely, awful. It's littered with bad acting, and the actual Predators are laughable, who sound like wookies, to be honest.

As well as being clichéd, we're also treated to 106 minutes of REALLY cheesy dialogue.

Also, am I the only person who is getting really sick of profanity in films? It's just pointless, and wreaks of lazy writing and lack of imagination. There must have been countless uses of the F-word in there. It's stupid.

The soundtrack is awful as well, so out of place and generic. When the credits rolled, I got up and looked up at the screen, and read "Music by John Debney" I just thought to myself "Duh. Sounds about right.".

Predators, really isn't a film that I would want to see again. I'd rather spend my money on something remotely entertaining.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Good but not great...

[6/10 · 17 May 2010]

I enjoyed this, don't get me wrong. It's a brilliant summer blockbuster, but there's just something off with it, and can't put my finger on what it is. Everything is there, a good balance of action, drama and humour. I'm racking my brains as to why I didn't enjoy it as much as Iron Man.

I've came to the conclusion that's it just isn't memorable enough. It's as if they just made it for the sake of having a sequel. There's nothing that memorable about it at all. The pacing I feel is really uneven, there's only 2 main action scenes, and as good as they are, I just felt that they were just showing off the special effects. It just didn't have any substance.

Robert Downey Jr is a brilliant actor, and I have to admit, there were scenes in Iron Man 2 where he really did make me laugh. The comedy was spot on, and it contained quite a lot of 'laugh out loud' moments. Anyway, the problem I have with Stark is that he doesn't feel like the same man from Iron Man. He comes across as arrogant, where as in the the first movie he was really smart. I wasn't too keen on the introduction of the Black Widow either, as much as I enjoyed watching Scarlett Johansson on a 60ft IMAX Screen.

I left the cinema feeling flat, and disappointed. I'll wait for the DVD release and watch it again. But I wasn't that impressed today, sadly.