Change Your Image
skyminster
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Rush Hour 3 (2007)
They Still Got It (Kinda)
Some of the jokes are a little stale and Jackie and Chris' usual chemistry isn't quite on the same level as in the first two films, but for all its faults Rush Hour 3's still a fun enough watch and has to be watched by pretty much any action movie fan, if anything just to complete the Rush Hour set. Yeah, it's the worst of the three. No question about that. But by no means is it bad or anywhere near it.
Chronicle (2012)
If Boys Will Be Boys, Working On This Basis, Can Boys Not Be Boys?
Back in 2012, a year with all sorts of crazy blockbusters including Skyfall, Avengers Assemble, The Hunger Games, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Amazing Spider-Man (wowzerz, and the list goes on
), this particular film came around from beneath people's noses with all kinds of shaky cam blazing and became somewhat of a hit. A lot of great films came out in that year, much more than we've been graced with in 2016, and I never managed to watch Chronicle until today, a thriller that mildly impressed a good portion of movie watchers. I, too, was mildly impressed.
It follows the story of three high school students, Andrew Detmer, Matt Garetty and Steve Montgomery in Seattle who gain telekinetic superpowers after exploring a mysterious underground cave on a night out. The three something-teens are brought together into an unlikely friendship, linking the shy and odd Andrew with the popular and outgoing Steve as they have unimaginable fun with their ridiculous abilities. However, when Andrew embraces his dark side with his powers, things start to spiral out of control and their friendship is tested (to the max).
It all starts when Andrew (the main character of the movie) begins filming everything in his life with his camera, and he is dragged into a party that eventually leads to the excitable exploration of said mysterious underground cave where weird shizzle happens and they come out being able to control the movement of objects without touching them – including, eventually, themselves, in a sense, as they fly around the joint. The problem is with the plot is, in the first half-an-hour or so, everything is a bit slow, and a bit boring. I'm not gonna lie, I didn't think the film was going to be that great when Andrew was slowly perving on cheer girls and walking around a bit. Even so, we get to learn more about Andrew, Matt and Steve as the film goes through this slow progression, and so although enjoyment factor is greatly crappified, the character development is given good time to grow.
Chronicle's gradual and frankly boring progression, however, is followed by a (mostly) thrilling and fast-paced hour or so of sinister and bloody friendship tests, as the film introduces itself to a much higher entertainment medium. Things go from fun and goofy to dark and edgy (
THE EDGE IS FINE) in the flick of a switch around the half- hour mark when Andrew uses his powers to hospitalize some bloke in a truck.
With it's shaky camera-work and dark undertones, Chronicle, I'd say, is a pretty cool film. Its found footage cinematography and its use of interesting premise help it to reach 'pretty cool' heights, along with its silent score and anti-protagonist Andrew. I'd call him that because he's a douche, but he's the guy who gets the most screen- time (like a protagonist) and I felt sorry for him because he sort of became a douche because of his long suffering at school and at home.
Something that is great about Chronicle is that it is completely honest, and there are no smoothed edges by the giant sandpaper in L.A; the fact it is means that the characters' actions can be easily relatable, and the dialogue, school bullying and action sequences can be fittingly brutal — which in turn means the film has the power to control your emotions as the viewer, because everything you see you can believe. However, the trolling by the teenage trio when they first obtain their powers is fun, but doesn't utilize that aforementioned ability to give you these emotions, because unfortunately I wasn't pushed to hysterics. There is also a slightly tacked on romance (of sorts) between Matt and some girl, which I didn't care much about, and there is a slightly lacklustre ending.
Even so, the more sinister and violent side of the film is immense, as the bloody climax is thrilling, and not at all overblown like one of Marvel's shiny-fests. I got over the fact that it got a bit ridiculous towards the end, because it was more intense than anything I've seen in a while, and the cool factor was pushed to awesome with all the super-charged explosions and telekinetic terrorism. Andrew changed from a weird kid in some corner to a demi- god from the timid start to the explosive finish, and that progression saw the incredible climax it needed. The other two of the three super-powered mates also saw fantastic character development through the run-time, as Micheal B. Jordan and the bunch put across believable and genuine performances, and were helped by a brutally honest script (get that sandpaper away from me, Zak Snyder!).
Chronicle is also a film that gets you thinking. It's not just a few teenagers flying around. The dark side's vicious admission makes you question the human soul and underlines how easy it is for someone to turn on their conscience, whilst also reminding you of the power of friendship and all dat. I apologize for the rubbishy analytical turn this review took. Let's go back to basics.
Chronicle isn't perfect, but it manages to push its flaws aside. It totally redeems itself with its brilliantly intense atmosphere, relatable characters and brutal realism on show, all delivered through unique camera-work and nailed down with a solid premise.
Turbo Kid (2015)
Who Knew Mincing People Could Be So Funny?
First, I'll give you an overview of what Turbo Kid is, if you don't know already. It's an indie action movie with the whole 80's shtick, and follows the adventure of 'The Kid' and his confusing new friend Apple in the post-apocalyptic wasteland of 1997, in which he fights the tyrannical overlord of the new world Zeus.
I've never been nearly as infatuated with the whole 80's thing as Milo has, but I appreciate its appeal. Turbo Kid is full of synth and it houses tongue and cheek dialogue and ridiculous violence like many of dem 80's action films; it feels like a homage to the good old days of Robocop, Rambo and Escape From New York (the latter also being set in 1997, funnily enough). Turbo Kid also holds a plethora of overblown, ridiculous and colourful character designs, in the old-fashioned future world, if you like – particularly similar to Mad Max. The in-your-face-ness of the film gives it an extra edge, and the fun designs are something to feast your eyes on, whilst the synth-filled soundtrack gives it that feel good factor.
Now, the action is also totally on point. With terrible practical effects bodies pop like cartons of grape juice with plastic guts and all that good stuff. If I were to describe the action in the film, it would sound horrible, but on screen, the awful effects and comic timing make it hilarious; in the non-stop bloody onslaught that are the last 30 minutes of Turbo Kid, entertainment is pushed to the absolute max in all its gutsy glory.
However, there is more to Turbo Kid than just mental action. Through all the madness, there is a great bond created between The Kid (Turbo Kid himself) and Apple. Munro Chambers isn't special as The Kid, but Laurence LeBoeuf is great as Apple. Both actors fit their characters well, The Kid as the slightly reluctant and geeky Kid and Apple as the energised and excitable Apple. As more is revealed about both characters, they become more and more likable, and their bond gets more and more strong as the film progresses, giving the movie a heartwarming touch and an under-tone message of friendship and justice (as is cheesily put on the back of the DVD's box). The varied camera-work also comes as a nice surprise, coming as one of its indie quirks.
The rest of the cast is mostly made up of acceptable but not special performances, although the Big Cowboy, Frederick by Aaron Jeffrey is wonderfully in-your-face, as performances go, a little like a slightly crappy version of Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones. Some of the funniest lines, and some of the dud lines, both come from this Cowboy's part of the script. That leads into a little issue of the film, the script writing. Although most of the film's dialogue is on point, there are a small selection of dud lines throughout that take hammy to new levels. That alongside the movie's slow start and slightly underwhelming villain in Zeus show that Turbo Kid isn't perfect. Even so, I don't know if any of those 80's action marvels were perfect in the first place.
To conclude, as a homage to 80's action classics and as a standalone film itself, Turbo Kid is pure enjoyment, in its ridiculous gore, perfect comedic timing and fantastic design features, and is well worth a watch for anyone looking for a good time, or, I hear, anyone who liked Mad Max: Fury Road.
Escape from New York (1981)
Snake, Snake, Severus Sna oh wait
You've probably heard of Snake Plissken, right? You know, that guy with the eye-patch. Solid Snake? From Metal Gear Solid? Yeah, basically the same guy. This particular bloke is the protagonist of Escape From New York, one of the classic 80's action films I mentioned in my Turbo Kid review (click it, you know you want to). It's set 16 years in the future, the far-out year of 1997 – weird to think that I wasn't born then – in a USA that saw a 400% increase in crime-rate and so had Manhattan made into effectively a massive prison, where criminals who enter are there for life, in the society that they have built.
Snake Plissken happens to be a convicted bank robber, and is sent to the giant prison for life for his crime. However, when the President crash lands in the heart of the island, Snake is sent in (as a former war hero) to bring him back in time for an important TV conference. That's all the story is, really. A simple one, but one that works, if only just because it throws Snake into the perfectly designed ghetto streets of New York. There is a sinister and dark undertone flowing through the ruined streets, as many urban dwellers run around in flashy and cave-man like outfits like a mixture between costumes in Streets of Rage and Golden Axe. These features coupled with flashing street lights and an electronic Mega Drive beat-em-up soundtrack make for a perfectly cheesy and overblown 80's techno aesthetic. There is a constant 8- bit beat throughout the movie, giving it a tempo that really works. I wonder where Streets of Rage got its influence?
Nonetheless, the tempo is too slow, because there is a 22 HOUR TIME LIMIT, so of course Snake's gonna take his time! There is too much of him just strolling around, and people sitting around, and people just generally doing things around — slowly. The soundtrack isn't quite used to full effect, either, because the film is often just too quiet for my liking. Gun shots N that don't have the effect they could have, too, because they're so muffled. I guess this might be effected by the time it was made, but still, I'm sure I've heard better sound editing in films of its time.
More importantly, Snake Plissken is a douche. I know that's kind of meant to be his thing, but still, and he's definitely a dude, but he could be a little less annoying and growly. He doesn't show off his fighting skills enough, either, which leads into another problem of the film. For a film with such a simple premise, a lot of action would really help the movie drive along. There just isn't enough of it. There are some great moments, and whenever there is a bit of fisticuffs, it's great fun, but it simply doesn't happen enough. It's partly made up for with its cool atmosphere, but Escape From New York can be a little boring.
Most of the rest of the cast of characters ain't at all perfect, to boot. 'Brain' is a boring ass smart guy who doesn't seem all that smart. Maggie is just there for the boobs, let's face it. And Cabbie is just annoying and badly acted. The Duke knows what he's doing though. He's the big dawg. Just a shame he has about 10 minutes of screen time to his name. His right-hand man with the crazy hair is a big victim of lack of screen time, because he only gets about 5 minutes, which is a huge shame, because he's one of the only interesting characters in the whole thing.
Regardless, the film's whole shtick is pretty cool, and the world creation is on point. Also, the camera-work is pretty good, with some surprisingly ambitious shots.
Although Escape From New York has a spot-on and flashy 80's aesthetic and some good moments, it falls fairly flat with paper thin characters (along with some underused characters) and the fact it's just too darn slow and quiet.
Mildy disappointing but never a slog – decent(ish) fun.
Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)
Funnily Enough, There Are Three.
From Laika, the company who brought us Coraline, Paranorman and Boxtrolls, we've been given another stop-motion treat. Actually, "treat" is a massive understatement for this masterpiece of a movie.
Yes, Kubo and the Two Strings is incredible.
The first thing that jumps out with Kubo is its awe-inspiring stop- motion animation, and incredible settings brought to life with fantastic CGI – there is a perfect mix of stop-motion and CGI to make everything look gert good to full effect. There is a huge grandeur to the film, as Kubo embarks on his amazing adventure in his highly detailed and breathtaking world. The character designs are also particularly charming, and unique, with a huge influence of ancient Japanese culture – colourful designs like those of the samurai.
It is the inspiration of Japanese culture that makes the film's aesthetic so special, as the beautiful landscapes of Japan are reflected in the massive world the studio managed to so finely create. From Kubo's quaint Japanese village to the snowy and huge mountains and caves, this film has it all in terms of setting.
The soundtrack is also an integral part of making Kubo and the Two Strings the special experience it is. This aspect of the film is also hugely influenced by ancient Japanese culture, with the constantly alternating and oriental sounding strings pervading through the run time — orchestras are also used to great dramatic effect.
Perhaps more important, however, is the action. Kubo and the Two Strings is an action adventure film, and throughout our protagonist's immense journey, intense battle scenes are an important and enjoyable factor. Dramatic action sequences provide a stream of excitement in the movie, showing off the animation in great set-pieces.
Of course, characters are always vital to moving a film from good to great. This particular film gets character absolutely spot on. There is a potent mix of comedy, bonding and emotional drive in Kubo and the Two Strings' cast; as the three protagonists of Kubo, 'Monkey' and 'Beetle' show. You'd be right in thinking Kubo's the main guy, and rightfully so, because through him the adventure and the emotion of his story are driven. 'Monkey' brings a nice li'l mixture of comedy and emotion, as well as giving the movie a much needed aggressive edge. 'Beetle', my personal favourite, is the perfect comedy relief, as through him there is a stream of light and well written funnies. The best thing about the three main characters, however, is the unbreakable bond created between them (they've got great voice actors at the helm, to boot), something that is built right as Kubo sets off on his quest.
This particular quest Kubo embarks on is one of finding the magical armour of his late samurai father, and getting sweet, sweet revenge against the villains of the piece, who stole his eye, and intend to grab his other for good measure. It's a simple story, but oh so effective. As I wrote about in dat Finding Dory review (a bit), the simpler, the more memorable and followable (there's that Shakespeare thing coming out of me again – oops) the story, and the film as a whole, becomes — and unless it's one of those psychological science fictions like Ex Machina (ha, two links in one paragraph), it could easily mean it is better than something that goes too crazy with its plot. The basic plot in Kubo and the Two Strings acts as a foundation for further story-telling. The basic plot develops through the film to something deeper, and something that is potently delivered with impressive amounts of emotion (look, I was close to crying, okay?). It all comes to an immense close with its dramatic finale, too.
Some might think it all gets a little over-the-top as the film comes to a close, but that isn't the case. Everything comes together, in quite awesome fashion. Another qualm people have about the movie is that Beetle seems like a bit of a tacked on comedy relief for the kids, and although his lines aren't constantly funny, I found there were a lot of really clever lines and for the most part he is indeed funny.
To conclude, Kubo and the Two Strings is by far the best film of 2016 so far, and probably one of the best of this decade, with its awe-inspiring animation, potently delivered story, brilliant character and fantastic world creation all shown off in Kubo's incredible and action-packed journey – nice helpings of comedy and emotion are very welcome too.
Kick-Ass (2010)
Scott Pilgrim/Spidey-Man: IN-YOUR-FAAAAACE!
I've always liked the good old superhero film, and some action and comedy are always very welcome. Kick-Ass has action, comedy, and superheroes (sort of), in abundance. And no, I haven't read the graphic novel, so I won't be comparing it to that.
Kick-Ass follows the story of your average teenage boy in the later years of high school, as he somehow manages to become an internet hit as the real-life superhero, Kick-Ass, who is somewhat lame. But that's the whole point, because Kick-Ass is real lame, with his kinda crappy costume, and Dave, the kid behind the mask, is just some geeky dingus. Dave's vacant teenage mannerisms are perfect for driving the stupid and slightly careless film along, as he embodies the ridiculous script on show. If there's one thing that's true about Kick-Ass other than the fact it's oh so American, it's in-your-face. Not crappy in-your-face either, because there is a clever comic screenplay at the heart of it, as outlandish jokes and ridiculous happenings make the film super- duper enjoyable – especially for a fifteen-year-old like yours truly. It's all given to our watering eyes in some of the most solid cinematography I've seen in a while, to boot.
Kick-Ass' hilarity is helped by the ludicrous action, which provides a brilliantly bloody and blain-splatty stream of goofy entertainment. Although the comedy and action are definitely the film's high points, it also has some great acting performances and some great use of timing and drama — the mixing of comedy, action and drama making it seem just like a comic book, along with comic side-notes like "Meanwhile
" floating in the corner of the screen as it sends you threw the motions. Moreover, there is, for the most part, a very solid cast on show in Kick-Ass. Dave and his two mates is a particularly good example of the acting on display, as they seem exactly like the three comic nerds you could see, as Aaron- Taylor Johnson showcases what is by far his best performance — certainly better than that boring crap in Godzilla, at least. Mark Strong puts on the perfect British villain with Frank D'Amico, too, with his character and gang providing a brilliant load of suspense, gang villainy and drama – along with some great Italian-American goons who are stupid, but not too stupid. Finally, the teenage bond between Katie and Dave is fine, because along with being something you'd expect from a superhero film, it's also well acted, because there is a clear bond between them as characters.
But even so, this does make for some slightly cringe moments and average high school movie traits taking some of the screen time. Although Kick-Ass is great fun, it's not exactly perfect. With Aaron-Taylor Johnson's narration it makes it feel that much more like Spider-Man 3, and the aforementioned high school moments aren't always hilarious, per say. And though there is a great mix of drama, action, comedy and the such, it gives the film slightly mixed messages tonally. Also, do we really want Nic Cage? I mean, he's good in the action scenes, but everywhere else he's a bit monotone, which is not what you want in a crazy film like this. Also, the aforementioned bond between Dave and Katie is much, much stronger than the one between Big Daddy (ol' Nic) and Hit-Girl. Although Hit- Girl isn't the most endearing kid in the world, she provides some of the most fun action in the movie. And one last small point, it's a shame that the movie slows down a around the hour mark. I would have loved full-throttle action comedy, but that just isn't quite what happened.
Kick-Ass, with its immensely fun and in-your-face fisticuffs, comic script and selection of great performances, all topped off with very solid camera-work is a great superhero flick. However, it is held back a little by a few average scenes and a mixed tone, in particular, which remind you that it isn't quite perfect. But man it's great fun.
If you like any of the Spider-Mans, or Scott Pilgrim, you should definitely watch Kick-Ass, because it's like a mix of the two — but to the extreme!
https://stuffandthatreviews.wordpress.com/
The Nice Guys (2016)
Boobs, Blood 'nd Comedy. This Thang's Got It All.
I was looking forward to The Nice Guys and boy am I glad I saw it before it stopped being shown. It's glorious.
It's just great watching. Comedies are usually good fun (assuming they're quality comedies and/or don't star Melissa McCarthy), but The Nice Guys carries with it the aura of the funk, the sex, and the mystery – bringing everything to the max. It's in-your-face in its ridiculous aesthetic, or simply its whole shtick, but perhaps what it does best is use quality comedy writing and acting to carry across a lot of stupid comedy, but not always straight into your schnoz comedy — as a lot of the jokes are down to clever writing and are a little more subtle. However, the best laughs in the film explode into your face, like the blood spurting out of March's (Ryan Gosling) wrist and rotting corpses are thrown around. But although the film is full of stupid jokes, it is not totally stupid; as it revolves around a gripping plot that works wonders for the movie – keeping it going at all times. Therefore it is forgiven in the occasional moments where scenes are dragged on for slightly longer than necessary. Occasional.
The soundtrack also helps The Nice Guys, as it's all funky-ass beats to fit the time period — although it's unfortunate the Chili Peppers didn't come up because it was calling for it. Of course, the boobs also help. And although Russell Crowe's American accent is a little awkward, he and Ryan Gosling are a great pair for who are two deeper than you might think characters in March and Healey. Other cast members like Angourie Rice are also impressive in the film, and she, in particular, may help Milo to get along with child actors a little more (and no, Milo is not a pervert, he just doesn't like child actors, and her performance was good so it could prove to him they're not all bad).
In conclusion, from the very start I knew what I was in for with The Nice Guys. Stupid, fairly obscene, and really enjoyable watchin'. It could stand up as a classic comedy of this decade, even, and is the best new film I've seen this year so far. If you get a chance, watch this film. You probably won't regret it.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Disappointing but not a bad film
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has walked in the exact same direction as Man of Steel did, with too little colour or life and a tendency to overdo everything. Now, this film over does the wrong things. Whilst Jesse Eisenburg takes ages over his poor attempt at a replication of great Dark Knight villains like Scarecrow and the Joker as the weird and overly talkative Lex Luther, Batman and Superman's development as characters suffers. Although both Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill put out good performances, their characters, oddly, aren't given enough screen time or lines to let them develop their motivation to fight each other, and the film doesn't benefit from this as mostly what their fight is is a flash- fest – which, though impressive, doesn't have the drive it really needs.
However, Affleck is brilliant as the new, brutal Batman and as Bruce Wayne, as his interpretation may even be better than Christian Bale's — especially in some fight sequences where it feels just like you're in the middle of an Arkham game (and that's a very good thing). The action in the film is visually impressive, brutal and atmospheric, and the score by Hans Zimmer is fantastic as it is just as loud, in-your- face and goose-bump provoking as you'd want from an action film like it is.
Nonetheless, it feels so much like Zack Snyder has tried to cram far too much material into one film, as the mad 2-and-a-half-hour cuts shows. Needless to say, the story goes overboard, and everything just gets crazier and crazier to the extent that it gets over the top and it feels like it should have just ended half-an-hour ago once the film has finally ended. But then even though it's still 2- and-a-half hours long there is still the problem with Batman and Superman's character development, as 20 minutes of this is taken by some pointless dream sequence which adds NOTHING – so clearly a better editor was needed for this one — or, yes, there should have been more than one film. Furthermore, the story really is a mismatch, and it further supports the lack of quality editing.
To summarise: Though Zack Snyder is a great visual artist as this film emphatically shows, his ideas for films like this seem scrambled and things don't end up quite as cool as they could have. For now, this film is pretty cool, but it could have been so much cooler. I'm excited for what's to come with Batfleck, anyway, and Wonder Woman — but not Aquaman, oh, no, not Aquaman. I'd say this film is worth a watch if you're a superhero or an action film fan, but, yes, don't expect a masterpiece.
What We Do in the Shadows (2014)
New Zealand's comedy masterpiece
Co-written by Jermaine Clement and Taika Waititi, this is one of the better comedies I've seen; or at least the best mockumentary I've seen. What is the biggest achievement for this film, though, is probably that it isn't far off Tongan Ninja when it comes to how funny it is.
It's all bloody ridiculous (in a very literal sense, and yes, I did use this joke in my tweet last night). The fact that they're vampires with a lust for blood in New Zealand symbolises exactly what is ridiculous about the film, as it's a very nonchalant atmosphere in a little overshadowed country (what overshadows it? Tonga), and they're there as blood sucking vampires trying not to get their sofas messy when they feed on their prey and having flat meetings and such.
It's like if Flight of the Conchords was set in a vampire mansion in Wellington — and who doesn't want that? I know I want much more of it, because it is bloody funny. From the ghost cup to the beast and to the reason behind drinking virgin blood, it's full of gags, while its nonchalant (yes, I'm using that word again) humour comes to life when blood explodes everywhere and ol' Viago's (Taika Waititi) getting all distressed about it. I mean, I don't know why I even tried to review this film. It's just really, really stupid; but it's really, really great at the same time. See, that's all I needed to say.
Well, I guess I'll say more. The writing and the concepts aren't the only things good about the film. Everything else is also bloody brilliant. The casting, for one, is perfect. Jermaine Clement is about as funny as he usually is, and he along with Jonathan Burgh and Cori Gonzales-Macuer symbolise that unbothered approach the film takes – but horrifically sadistic at the same time — blood and guts are always a nice addition, of course. The documentary style also works well for it, as if it was any other way I don't think it would work.
In conclusion, What We Do In the Shadows is an odd film, but a very funny, very well written and probably very memorable film, and one of the best comedies I've seen. Although it might not be quite as quotable as the glorious Tongan Ninja, and the feeling when someone is being preyed on by vampires and you're in hysterics does get a little weird, if there's anything New Zealand should be proud of, it is this.
The Jungle Book (2016)
A very entertaining spectacle
I watched this without any prior anticipation or much foreknowledge. But it turned out to be a great mixture of Life of Pi and the original; a good film, definitely.
Surprisingly, it's a very intense, gripping film, different to the classic 1967 movie which was a light-hearted and jazzy musical. This new film adopts the visuals and drama of something like Life of Pi whilst keeping some of the classic Disney movie tropes, as the light-heartedness and comedy does remain. The thing The Jungle Book does best, however, is its visuals. From the wolves to the elephants and to Shere Khan himself, the CGI is top-class, and the scene of the jungle is brilliantly created as the detailed wildlife is a very nice touch — little animals doing amusing little things everywhere you look. Cinematography is also used to great effect, especially visible in the Kaa scene.
Aside from its looks, The Jungle Book may not be a masterpiece, but for entertainment it is up there with the best in the last couple of years. Not Star Wars: the Force Awakens level, but not actually that far from it. It follows a simple yet effective story in which Mowgli is the victim of Shere Khan's lust for power and he has to run in different directions to escape his grip, inevitably of course bumping into classic characters like Baloo and King Louie along his merry way. Neel Sethi's Mowgli is a simple but charming character, and with him you as the viewer are taken through his journey, being forced to relate to and fear for him as he runs through the many dangers he encounters.
Neel Sethi is in the centre of what is a fantastically picked cast of recognisable actors. Bill Murray in particular is perfect as the recreated Baloo, and good ol' Christopher Walken does a good King Louie (there was no bit o' wee for me though, unlike Milo). In fact, I can't really pick flaw with any of them, other than maybe Neel Sethi for being a bit bland sometimes — but he's a kid, he can get away with it.
Everything that is recreated in the film is recreated in a good way. Baloo in particular adopts Bill Murray's sense of humour at the same time as being similar to the old Baloo that everyone grew to love, and through his character the film's light-hearted side is brought to life, though fairly subtly as otherwise it would overwhelm the rest of the film's intense adventure-like feel. In fact, the two different feels work in harmony, as action-driven sequences are split up by nice lil' funny Baloo sequences.
King Louie embodies what is different between the original and this new film. Though he still sings the classic "I wanna be like you" song – well, I might add; he carries a sinister veil and a dark part of the story not quite represented in the animated original, where he talks of greed and the "red flower", siting the change in approach for this shadowy adaption. It's presented very well, too — a particularly good ten or so minutes.
If there is one thing negative I can say about The Jungle Book is that everything really is very simple, and everything that happens at the end, though tense, definitely isn't unexpected. Maybe that's due to the source material, I don't know. But maybe some things more complex could have been added in for the older audience. Despite its simplicity, though, it is a highly entertaining film filled with great performances and impressive visuals, with a good blend between light-heartedness and things more sinister. And I wouldn't say it made me want to watch the original. It's not a deep masterpiece quite like Life of Pi, but this could be an unexpected addition to this year's best movies.
Solomon Kane (2009)
Average but fun
Being an idiotic teenager, I am easily pleased by the good ol' ridiculous violence and overwhelming amounts of fake blood when it comes to films — or even games. As expected, this film is filled to the bloody core with it, and as it is well choreographed, visually impressive and with bloody amounts of blood, it's great, as bloody action goes.
Nonetheless, it's by far the best thing the film has to offer. A slightly cheesy script, some hammy performances and a definitely- not-influenced-by-The-Lord-of-the-Rings plot mean Solomon Kane's not exactly a work of genius. However, I happened to like the 1600's west country setting, which is fittingly gloomy and pays homage to the cider drinking farmers' land — even though Axemouth Castle unfortunately does not exist. I forgive 'em for that though, because I don't really care about that nitty gritty stuff; especially considering all the great villain designs.
The cheesiness is a bit of a problem though, and a lot of the performances are indeed hammy, as the film also doesn't try that much that's new. Even if there is some great action in a good setting Solomon Kane has its fair share of flaws and isn't one for the ages. For a teenage boy like me it is enjoyable for what it is, but, I think I've made my point.
66/100.
Submarine (2010)
Very different, very good
Both a comedy and an emotional roller-coaster, this film knows what its doing.
Made up of a cast largely unheard of and a small budget, it isn't exactly a blockbuster. The film is helmed by Craig Roberts, as the main character Oliver Tate, a geeky 15-year-old who goes to a state school in Swansea and lives with his mother and father as an only child. The film's beginning leads you into thinking the film is a comedy, but as it progresses the comedy becomes more and more a thing on the side, as the story, drama and emotion totally kicks in.
This works, as the balance between comedy and drama is pretty much perfectly struck – although a little more comedy would work. Both sides of the film are fantastically written and directed by Richard Ayoade, with unique cinematography and a fantastic script along with some quirky aspects such as the use of parts in the film, and different colours between scenes depending on the mood — red in part one signalising Oliver Tate's excitement and confusion and blue in part two to show that the emotion is kicking in. Or at least that's what I gathered. It's a clever idea but I'm not sure it's one that benefits the film itself, rather sets itself apart from others more. It is indeed a very unique film, and a clever one; and it does to a good job setting itself apart from just about anything else.
Filled with fantastic performances, namely Craig Roberts, well- written comedy and drama, likable characters, a gripping plot and interesting quirks, this film is proud to be British, and it's great. Nonetheless, it's probably not for everyone, and a little more comedy would have been nice.
83/100.
Zoolander 2 (2016)
Sequel Syndrome: The Movie... Again!
I remember Zoolander. I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. It was alright. Stupid comedy, with Ben Stiller, Will Ferrell, and the rest. Not a special film. They enjoyed making it though, so they decided to make a sequel. I watched it. I realised soon after sitting in my comfy cinema seat, scoffing chocolate down my throat, opening wrappers, etc, - there were only about 4 others in the cinema, so it was okay - that it's crap.
Well, not until the initial intro ended, anyway. Not the immediate intro, though, with Justin Beiber being shot and all that, but the bit after, which reacquainted me with ol' Derek Zoolander and his shenanigans. Spanning through the years since 2001 via news readings worked, as the countless stupid things between the films were described in the most stupid way possible. There were good jokes in this bit, ranging from Zoolander's bad parenting to his bad building, and it was funny. A good intro, definitely. However, most everything after it sucked.
Other than the occasional chuckle worthy gag, the only thing that properly made me laugh after the intro was Benedict Cumberbatch's ridiculous cameo as the transgender morph "All". Nonetheless, his was the only worth while cameo as other random celebrities added nothing to the film, and in a lot of cases made it more irritating than it needed to be. The extended cast also weren't fantastic. The modern fashion dork with a hat, you know, what's his face with dreadlock things, is a master in the art of douche baggery, and his jokes grew old very, very quickly. There was also Derek Jr, who also wasn't likable, to say the least.
Along with them, the fashion goddess Alexanya Atoz had a few rubbish jokes to begin with, whilst Valentina was just, Penelopé Cruz, being her, under a different name. What was odd with this was that it made the film oddly a little like Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, especially with the inclusion of the fountain of youth as a major plot point. Maybe it's because they couldn't think of anything themselves, as writers.
The plot works, I guess, and it gets Zoolander and Hansel back on the fashion scene. However, it's filled with references and such, and it just isn't funny. They also clearly went for the deliberately bad, but therefore good method. It didn't work. It was just bad. Most of the writing in the film seems either tacked on or tired, as well; as a lot of the jokes weren't funny to start with, but whichever ones were, they overused. There also needs to be something more to Hansel and Zoolander than just orgies and pouting, because they get old pretty quickly. A lot of the jokes in the film were also stolen from the first film, and the first film wasn't that amazing anyway. As the film wore on the film got worse and worse, really – to the point where I almost thought of laughing because I felt sorry for the film. Derek Jr got more and more prominent and the plot got more and more like it was trying to be ridiculous. But they failed, because the plot points had no solid jokes to help them, and the irritating celebrity cameos were filling the run time.
Notwithstanding, after Mugatu was finally introduced, the film was helped a little by Will Ferrell's mental humour. He was introduced decently as well, and with him came, finally, some funny stuff. It was very short lived though, and it's frustrating that he couldn't have been in it more. Nevertheless, even his jokes were starting to get worn down. His possible run time was unfortunately taken by rubbish extras, and Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, who really weren't at their best.
Verdict:
Zoolander 2 suffers from a certain thing called sequel syndrome. A lot of the jokes in it were stolen from the first one, overused and made redundant. Any original jokes they did have for the most part weren't very funny to start with, and got less and less bearable as the film went on. This was partly thanks to the actors performing the jokes, though, as none of the new characters were likable. Even Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson didn't look like they were enjoying the film-making process, as they and Will Ferrell weren't at their best. Even though the film started strongly, the bad jokes and in- originality along with the bombardment of pointless celebrity cameos and unsure actors meant the rest of the film didn't fair well, to say the least.
It's a comedy film, so people are supposed to laugh. I didn't hear much laughing.
39/100.
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
Stick with the first film.
I liked the first Avengers. It was fun, had a whole load of action and some good acting, a decent story and such forth. However, after watching Age of Ultron for the first time yesterday, I can safely say it's not as good. No. I'm not gonna hold this back to the end, actually. It isn't very good at all. Maybe that's why everyone's forgotten about?
Following on, sort of, from Captain America: Winter Soldier and the first Avengers, you're thrown straight into the action, where the Avengers duke it out with what remains of Hydra, to snatch the sceptre – you know, the one Loki used in the first film. Nonetheless, there isn't really much fighting back, and the Avengers easily take the sceptre after a relatively boring action sequence, which both goes on for too long and is so easy for the Avengers that it's not actually that easy to watch. It's not silly action. It's not very exciting, it's just watching the Avengers beating up some goons, in a repetitive manner. The underwhelming action along with a substandard script, flat acting and total lack of atmosphere or inventive cinematography makes for an uninspiring first 20 or so minutes.
However, the intro for the first Avengers film wasn't all that much better, so I guess it got better then?
Eventually, I guess.
Well, the script didn't change, for one thing. Filled with brilliant things ranging from rubbish one-liners (not fun, Scharzenegger one- liners, that is; just Tony Stark annoying one-liners) to bad comedy. The story, on the other hand, isn't anything special either. Actually, it's a bit crap. Stuff blows up, they have a party, then some annoying robot guy turns up. Then everything goes a bit pair- shaped, and — oh! Did I ever mention the twins? They suck ass. I mean, they properly suck ass. Portrayed by Elizabeth Olsen and good ol' Aaron Taylor Johnson (the stars of Godzilla!), are the twins who I didn't care about. Vaguely European, they put on terrible accents and act without any expression or personality whatsoever. Sure, they have pretty cool powers, but that doesn't mean they're good characters. They ruin the film, no less. They just complicate things and make the film longer than it needed to be. Furthermore, the girl, whatever her name is, she does this telepathic stuff. It doesn't lead to anything other than a stupid fight between Iron Man and Hulk, which I didn't care about. I was thinking for a lot it: "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!" Tony Stark, that is.
The film's length is a big issue, actually. What little content they had, they decided to stretch it out to over 2 hours. Simply put, over 2 hours is too long for a super hero film. They're all about silly action and cool characters, not soppiness and too much talking. The length and lack of substantial content for it makes for dragging out of scenes that weren't that interesting anyway, and, frankly, a first hour that's a bit boring — reminded of Godzilla, anyone? In some ways, I think this film is worse than Godzilla. Wait! I was supposed to leave that till the end! Oh well. Anywho, there's also way too much linking to the Marvel universe, with the telepathic twin at fault again. I don't want Thor walking around saying stuff, whilst ripping his shirt off in Thor, so I definitely don't want it in Avengers. None of the side plots added anything. Especially Tony Stark and Hulk's stupid fight.
Back to the acting. Robert Downey Junior. Eh. Didn't have much of a script to work on. I think his Iron Man is wearing thin, though, anyway. Scarlett Johansonn. The same as ever. Chris Hemsworth. Not helped by the script at all, his Thor isn't a friend with bad jokes. For some reason they decided for him to get involved in them. Alright. I'm gonna stop now. There isn't a special performance anywhere in this, and though the cast is the victim of a substandard screenplay, they don't do a good job of making the most of what they've got, as most of the performances are bland and without any change for the better from past performances — though Chris Evans is decent as Captain America, as per usual.
I haven't actually said anything positive yet, really. Well, maybe it's not quite as bad as you might have interpreted so far. Sure, the first hour is, but as the film gets further the action and entertainment gets a lot better, and the plot kicks in as there's actually some great action, in an exciting climax. It's great fun, and the score kicks in as well, so there's finally some atmosphere. The last 50 minutes or so are good, actually, as all the pointless talking and soppiness has more or less ended, the film finally finds a faster pace. Nevertheless, it's not all that good, as you may have guessed.
Verdict:
Uninspired on every level, Avengers: Age of Ultron, until the 1:20 mark, is rubbish. The last 50 minutes are quite a lot better, though, with great action and excitement on display. Nonetheless, the flaws found all over the first hour 20 are still found in this portion of the film; ranging from a bad script, to an uninteresting story, ponderous acting and pointless branching to the wider Marvel universe — with the film's length far too long. It's not completely rubbish, but
Just stick with Avengers Assemble.
"In some ways, I think this film is worse than Godzilla."
54/100.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
Pretty much perfect in everything it sets out to do.
I love Star Wars, especially the original stuff, of course. The Force Awakens stays true to the original trilogy; with the start of the film on a Tatooine-like planet, Jakku, as per usual. It follows the thrilling journey of the brilliant Poe of the Resistance and Finn of past Storm trooper relation, at first, as you are thrown into the blistering excitement. But then there is a twist in the main hero being a girl. It works both simply for a change, but also in that it is pretty much a first in as big a film as Star Wars that the main character is a female. That wouldn't matter, though, if the character wasn't a likable hero, or if the acting wasn't any good. Fortunately, those boxes are ticked, as with every character in the film bar Snoke, who is an example of bad CGI, unfortunately. He doesn't play a very big part, though, and other than him the special effects are fantastic — with the use of more practical effects being a refreshing move from Lucasarts, and one that the film benefits from, as it doesn't look artificial like so many films do nowadays (The Hobbit, Star Wars prequels, Avengers, etc).
Along with the great use of practical effects, there are fantastically designed costumes all over the joint, with great designs ranging from the new-look storm troopers to Kylo Ren and his super cool outfit.
Going back to character, though, the move from Disney to advertise Finn as the main Jedi was clever, as it meant for the reveal of Rey as the Jedi to be much better than otherwise could have been possible. Finn, though, is a fantastic character, with John Boyega deserving more nominations than he's received for his charismatic performance. One other thing done well with The Force Awakens is the lack of slow story development which so marred the progress of the prequel films, and A New Hope in part (I thought, though it was amazing even so), and also the decision to focus on characters to develop the story other than excess plot development means for better character development and means you actually like the characters, unlike Episodes I, II and III. Moreover, the return of light-heartedness and inclusion of comedy makes it an even more enjoyable watch; however, mixed with darker themes clearly inspired by the best parts of Episode III, there is more violence and concentration on action — with that providing excitement, and the comedy bringing extra enjoyment. Finn personifies the more light- hearted approach along with the brilliant BB8, and Kylo Ren is a fantastic vehicle for the darker side of the film, who I love – even though some people might think he's a bit of a snotty nosed dork. Kylo Ren is probably just as good a villain as Darth Maul in my opinion at least, but he's used much, much better, fortunately. Ah, yes. The Phantom Menace. Let's all remind ourselves of that excellent part of film history. Good for you and me, though, we can forget about that now, because we have the sequel trilogy, which could even be better than the original if they keep on getting things right like they did with this film.
One more thing I'm grateful was done right was the score. A mixture of both classic tracks and new ones, it's fantastic in both providing towards all the drama and the overall feel of the film. Because, by using both old tracks and new ones it reminds you of the past (sparking your nostalgia) whilst also bringing something new, which the film does fantastically with every aspect; from the story to the cast to the sets to the action and to the (you guessed it) score. Other than being a tad ridiculous in some plot turns, and lacking quite the same grandness of scale in sets and cast that the original films did – but only just, mind you; it's pretty much perfect in what it has set out to do; providing excitement, enjoyment, drama, action and nostalgia in abundance. Enough for a boy like me to squeal.
Verdict:
The Force Awakens is the main product of Disney's buy out, and so I'm very happy Disney got involved if it meant this beast of a film was made. It was almost a dream of mine that there would be a sequel trilogy, and it has actually happened, so I was aptly excited. My excitement was repaid emphatically, as when I sat in the cinema fulfilling one of my most anticipated pipe dreams, I was blown away by this surprisingly light-hearted yet violent, action packed and particularly well crafted, yes, beast of a film.
So I give it: 94/100.
Soylent Green (1973)
Creepy.
I'd like to say first that somehow I didn't know what Soylent Green was about before I watched it last night, and I won't spoil it for anyone who doesn't know and is considering watching it. It turns out it's a bit horrible, really. It's not really a horror film, but just a creepy sci-fi film, set in a densely overpopulated New York City of 2022, where supplies, including food such as fruit, vegetables and meat, are scarce, and space is something citizens must fight for.
Detective Thorn, who is thrown into a sinister plot involving the Soylent corporation after investigating a murder of a rich man working for the same company, does have some space in a small apartment, which he shares with Sol. Sol and Thorn's relationship is clearly strong, and is built throughout the film, until emotional sequences take place; however, I wasn't close to even welling up a little, as their relationship is not built in anywhere near the successful fashion Spot and Arlo's is in the previously reviewed The Good Dinosaur, for example (bet you didn't see that comparison coming!). Nonetheless, they are likable, and relatively, at least, relatable, in the horrible world they live in; as Charlton Heston does a good job as Thorn, who is the typical sort of cool, relaxed man with a slightly erratic style and an eye for heroism. But however a good job Heston does do as Thorn, he isn't as great a hero as the likes of other classics such as Luke Skywalker and the brilliant Toby Neary (Close Encounters). Nevertheless, he is different, and in a very different film.
Soylent Green is dark, sinister and creepy; set in a world where there are too many people, and not enough supplies. Dark themes throughout and a general lack of hygiene shown, or respect of women, or people in general, and light, where all people seem to be slowly dying, develops the dark veil over the film, and the sinister feeling of general wrongness. It's an intriguing film, with an interesting story – at points providing through simply morbid fascination – that keeps you watching, though I don't think there is as interesting, or deep, a story as their could be, and it is at points predictable (which is odd, because usually I'm too stupid to predict anything!). Furthermore, though a clever world has been created, and the aforementioned sinister feeling works wonders, the film isn't actually particularly enjoyable. First off, it's too slow moving. It's okay to have a film slow moving if things happen throughout to keep the interest going, and it's also okay if every scene of the film builds to something, and has significance with the story. However, the film doesn't provide much action, much excitement, or much anything like that. Sure, they got the sinister thing going, but not a lot else.
Indeed, Thorn is a good main character, and through him is told the strange story he is thrown into; moreover, Sol is likable, and a few side characters provide intrigue. But a lot of the acting is overblown, and some characters simply do not add anything to the film, other than a little to that sinister feeling. There is not enough character development on show with any of the wider cast, and there is also not enough development of the story through these characters, as they are just there to kind of say, "Hey, I'm here! Things are looking real weird, aren't they." But there isn't all that much to really enjoy with this film. There's barely even a soundtrack. I see why they used a silent score in some instances, but I think the film could have really benefited from some more looming bass, or some dramatic music, just to spike the senses some more.
However much missed potential there is, though, the cinematography is spot on, and the sets are perfect; so the clever world created is portrayed in the best possible way.
Verdict:
Although there is a clever world created in Soylent Green and a smart story with a successfully developed sinister, dark and creepy veil, all with spot on cinematography and sets; the film I watched isn't particularly enjoyable or exciting. Yes, Heston does a good job as Detective Thorn, who is an apt vehicle for the narrative, but many other performances are overblown, and some characters simply don't add anything to the film, other than small developments of the sinister feeling, which is one of the few things this film got totally right. It's too slow moving, and there is not enough action, or a good use of music or sounds, which the film would have benefited from. Also, though there is a smart story at the heart of it, it is not used to its full potential and is regrettably a little predictable.
It's a decent film, but not one I'll likely watch again.
So I give it: 70/100.
Wayne's World (1992)
Stupid in the best way possible
Wayne's World is stupid. But in a good way. Mike Myers and Dana Carvey are brilliant as the two main characters, the idiotic metal- heads still living with their parents, acting like teenagers; with each character – Wayne and Garth – providing laughs ranging from the extreme close-up right at the start, to the product placement scene.
In fact, I would say the two are geniuses as of their performances, and the writers are for providing them with such a hilarious script. The wider cast is important too, with many of them helping towards some more funny stuff; which is what this stupid film is all about – as the ridiculous plot further proves.
Wayne's World is one of the funnier films I've seen, with a stupid plot, stupid characters and a couple of geniuses behind it all to make it stupid in the best way possible. Mike Myers should have won an Oscar for his performance here.
If you haven't watched this, watch it now.
So I give it: 85/100 (rounded to 9/10 IMDb).
What stops it reaching 90 is the film doesn't provide laughs quite consistently enough to reach such a high score.
The Good Dinosaur (2015)
Even better than Inside Out
Pixar are filmmakers known for the quality of their films, despite being a bit off form in recent times
Until Inside Out came out earlier this year. The Good Dinosaur is the product of two new films in one year from Pixar; however, being released as the second in one year means the limelight has already been taken by Inside Out, and being shown in the same window as Star Wars has meant it's fallen short in the box office — but totally undeservedly. Now, to review!
When the film first started I wasn't quite sure what to think. Well, other than, "Is that water real? What about those trees? And those mountains?". I realised that they were not real, and so I was aptly impressed by the mind-bogglingly realistic computer generated environments and the beautiful world Pixar had created for the adventure coming. Who for, you ask? Arlo, the third of three babies of a farming couple who at first sounded odd with their voices, but only until I got used to it after about 30 seconds. The voice acting is very good, actually. Anyway, Arlo turned out to be a bit of a coward compared to the rest of his family, and was made to feed the birds they had in an enclosure on the farm – which led to numerous amusing encounters. Eventually, his dad realised Arlo was a bit of a dweeb, and made him catch something that was eating their food for winter. What was it? A kid, of course! Some serious shizzle then happened and the drama enfolded, leaving Arlo alone in the wilderness, until he befriended the kid, who was aptly named Spot.
As Arlo's quests get more and more dangerous, it gets more and more gripping, exciting and emotional, through a plot that twists and turns within various different settings which all bring different side- plots and side-characters which never fail to deliver, and gradually gets worse and worse for Arlo. It does this through numerous perfectly crafted dramatic sequences, scenes which forced me to relate to Arlo, with every bump to his head feeling like a bump to my own. Furthermore, his bonding with Spot made for a more light-hearted feel to the film to be introduced, in amidst all the drama and sadness; with Spot's actions being both intriguing and amusing. With Spot, also, came some pretty intense emotional stuff, which almost provoked crying three times for me. The way Pixar force you to relate, and bond, with Arlo and Spot really is incredible.
The film also has a nice Pixar sort of feel to it that can't quite be described, though it is unique in that it does not at all focus on comedy, and more on the drama and character building than any other film they've done. However, this is a good thing, especially considering there is a fair amount of lines in the film that were particularly funny – a lot of them in the western-like section of the film, with the rustlers, who really are fantastic.
Verdict:
The Good Dinosaur is a better film than Inside Out in my opinion, with escalating drama, action and emotion within a great story which follows fantastic characters; with the most impressive animation I've ever seen. It's not Pixar's best, but it's not that far from it.
So I give it: 93/100.
Godzilla (2014)
An alright film, and that's all.
Godzilla, eh? Oh yeah, that film, the one that wasn't that great and everyone sort of forgot about, right? Yeah, sort of – though it did get some serious slating from a certain someone. Nonetheless, I got it on Blu-ray at, I think, last Christmas, and I hadn't watched it, and decided to watch it the other day — over a year since I last watched it, in the cinema. Ah those were good times. Wait, what? Oh yeah, the review! Here goes
For a disappointing film, it certainly starts very well; with a great setting and introductions to seemingly great characters, one being acted by the now famous Bryan Cranston (as of Breaking Bad, although he was obviously his best in Malcolm in the Middle). He was fantastic, and acted a great character (Joe Brody), who in dramatic scenes at the start of the film blossomed. However, as the film introduces you to its slow pace, boring military guys and Aaron Taylor-Johnson as the relatively uninteresting, older kid who was in the start of the film (Lieutenant Ford): it suddenly goes from great to mediocre, if not a little bad. And, (sorry, but this has to be included in the review), after about 35 minutes or so of screen time, Bryan Cranston goes and dies, a very anticlimactic death, which gives his slightly boring son the undeserved limelight. And that does make me a bit angry.
As the film goes on, suspense it built, and it is built pretty well
. But where's Godzilla? Yes, I understanding they were trying to save the best till last, but, seriously, it's named after him, and the few and far between parts of the film he stars in are fantastic — so why isn't he in it more? Instead, the Mutos grab most of the attention, which are cool, and do some cool stuff, and are the result of fantastic special effects; but there is not enough of them or Godzilla, instead there is too much of military guys talking about them and people watching news videos of them crashing down the Eiffel Tower – which was a particularly uninventive scene.
Furthermore, most of the film's set in America, which is certainly a bit boring, and lazy, I think; but most importantly it doesn't stick to Godzilla's heritage, bar a few Japanese little things here and there and about 20 minutes set there. Godzilla's a Japanese thing. Come on. But that isn't so big a flaw as the film's length, which is unacceptably long for the amount of content actually in it.
Nonetheless, the film has a great score, there are cool bits here and there, and there is a great climax towards the end, Pacific Rim style – if a bit less ridiculously cool — and the start of the film is great.
But no one can argue that it's a flawed film. It is too long, with too little Bryan Cranston, Japan, and Godzilla, and too much random military guys who do nothing and Aaron Taylor-Johnson.
It's not a glowing endorsement of Gareth Edwards, but I don't understand some of the slating it's got. However disappointing it is, Godzilla is an alright film.
So I give it: 60/100.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
The best Hobbit film, and a must see
After watching various impressive trailers of the film, I expected great things from The Desolation of Smaug. And I'm glad to say I wasn't disappointed.
This second film offers more thrills and adventure, and doesn't have the hour long intro. The action is intense right from the start and is paced brilliantly with dramatic scenes scattered throughout the 2 and a half hours running time; not impeding the progress of the story or the other segments of the film, instead, funnels it on – in exciting ways. But it doesn't just jump into them: the transitions between scenes work brilliantly with the superb cinematography — and often the patented sweeping long shots, which show off the spectacular places in which the film takes place perfectly. It's pretty much down to good directing by Peter Jackson.
And, yes! The sets and all that! They were perfect. Mirkwood was
Perfect. Lake-town was
Perfect. And the lonely mountain itself? Perfect. And then there's the sound, and that's also fantastic.
The story flows fantastically with some great character development of characters that were very much side-lined in the first film: like Kili – with his interesting romantic side plot with Tauriel, a female elf, who seems a great addition to the film. However, some of the dwarfs were still left untouched in that department, just travelling with the rest of them, not really doing or saying anything of interest. Nevertheless, as a unit, the development is interesting: especially in the dragon scenes towards the end, where they act as heroes instead of the bumbling idiots they were portrayed as in the first film. But I'm not saying that was a bad thing given the slightly more comedic feel to the first film, I'm saying it's a good thing that they were not portrayed as 'bumbling idiots' in the second film because of the more melodramatic atmosphere it has.
Most characters were portrayed brilliantly with great and expressive acting, for the most part keeping the characters true to the book (but tweaked when they needed to be). One actor that particularly stood out was, of course, Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins; alongside Ian Mckellen, Orlando Bloom and Luke Evans. Also, Richard Armitage's portrayal of Thorin was especially good, on par with Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn – which is a pretty impressive feet. But these performances all paled in significance to Benedict Cumberbatch's incredible voice acting as Smaug. It was brilliantly expressive and stylized, and fit my favourite dragon perfectly, giving him an additional menacing air. I honestly can't think of anything negative to say about it; it's truly awesome. Smaug really does steal the show; well, you'd want him to when he's the main advertising point of the film, in its title and the main focus of the film when it gets into the last hour and a half. Anyway! Benedict Cumberbatch, although I hate to say it, may well deserve the hype he gets (based on this performance, anyway).
Furthermore, Luke Evans is fantastic as Bard: who is a fantastic character himself. Also, Steven Fry's appearance is completely fitting, giving his character's situation.
Aside from the characters and their portrayals; the visuals and the 3D of the film were nothing short of spectacular – some aspects even impressing me more than Gravity (and that was impressive!). Although, the CGI was a little overused at various points where models would have possibly served as the better choice – of course considering whether the use of models is realistic. The Lord of the Rings seemed to do a good job with it, anyway.
Of course you're wondering: did it drag with its length like the first one? Well, it is a similarly long film, but doesn't really feel like it is; because of the stimulating action throughout and its fantastic pacing. So, yeah, it doesn't drag at all.
This film is obviously trying to be as good as The Lord of the Rings, and it is so agonizingly close to doing it; but that isn't the way I want to think about it, because no film in my mind can quite live up to the perfection of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. But this Hobbit film is pretty damn incredible.
PS. The best parts of the film are in Mirkwood and scenes towards the end involving Smaug.
Verdict:
In The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug, Smaug is the centerpiece of what is a fantastic thrill ride, with the perfect blend of action and narrative paced perfectly, helped by some superb acting and amazing cinematography. The only thing inherently wrong with this film I can think of is that it has a tad too much CGI; but, what the hell: it's a must see and definitely the best Hobbit film.
So I give it: 96/100.
Spectre (2015)
Not as good as Skyfall or Casino Royale, but hugely entertaining
Daniel Craig does a great Bond, and he never fails to deliver at the helm of British heroism. In this new Bond film, he's just as good as he's ever been as 007. Along with him, of course, is a fantastic cast: including Andrew Scott, Dave Bautista, Cristoph Waltz, Ben Whishaw and Ralph Fiennes. Of course, Daniel Craig's portrayal as Bond is the stand out performance, but some of the other cast was almost just as impressive; with Dave Bautista, especially, playing an exceptionally brutish wrestler man.
However, Cristoph Waltz' performance was a little disappointing. He played the main villain in the piece, Blofeld, who was the recurring super villain in older films: you know, the one with the cat. However, after a long time waiting for the appearance of a proper villain in Spectre, he eventually showed himself: and as an odd mix of Silva from Skyfall and Blofeld from older films. Unfortunately, this twisting of the character all seemed like a failed attempt to bring back Silva – who was a fantastic villain – but with Cristoph Waltz, and an old villain to get everyone nostalgic. He was a decent villain in his own right, and Waltz was far from bad; but it's disappointing they tried to recreate an old villain (Silva) – and failed to do his sort of thing with the same acting quality or that brilliant sinister air Javier Bardem brought to his character. Also, there's a pretty predictable moment further on into the film that just made me cringe; although it was a pretty good scene.
However, the whole story that Blofeld is in the middle of is a great one, and one that sees Bond go from the terrorist threatened streets of Mexico City – and, by the way, all the Day of the Dead stuff makes for a good starting place and gives it a sinister air – to Rome and to Austria. But *Sort of spoiler alert* it all ends in London, which is a little too predictable, really. But yeah, the story's great – and there's great sets -, and keeps the film ticking, dropping hints and confusing James Bond himself — even though a few small things are left unexplained, and there's some pretty damn unbelievable crap here and there
But it's a Bond film! And an action film! And a blockbuster! So I think it can be forgiven – even if that's just because it means there's some pretty awesome explosions.
Action. Yeah, there's tonnes of it. And that's brilliant. No, seriously! Dave Bautista really keeps these parts ticking as well, with some pretty violent stuff – such as EYES BEING POPPED OUT; and he keeps Bond under pressure and, well, it makes for some fantastic fight scenes. I think, actually, Spectre concentrates more on the action and excitement more than Skyfall and Casino Royale — but it's a lot better better than Quantum of Solace, and so is the story telling. Consequently, it's a brilliantly entertaining film.
Spectre's story telling may be better than that of Quantum of Solace, but it ain't as good as Casino Royale or Skyfall, unfortunately. Yeah, it's got a good story, but it all seems like it's been done before – at least in similar context. Also, the script is noticeably weaker than that of Skyfall and Casino Royale, with some tacked on lines here and there. Nonetheless, it's not a bad script, far from it, and the story is good — just not as good as the high heights of the aforementioned Bond films before it (not counting Quantum of Solace, though). But the action is probably improved. And that's very important for an action film. It's just a bit disappointing some of the ideas in the film aren't particularly inspired and — who's The Pale King!? It wasn't really explained, but it somehow led to the main crux of the story in which Bond protected his daughter from the SPECTRE gang. But the film's forgiven because of its blockbuster status once again, because it really does deliver on the entertainment front – although it may leave a few things unexplained or undeveloped.
Ah! Characters, thanks, Pale King! Time to talk about a couple more of them. Firstly, there's Max Denbigh, or C, who's acted by Andrew Scott (that's your cue, Sherlock fans!). He's a snotty nosed member of the government who attempts to ruin everything on the sidelines. Andrew Scott plays him well, but his character's a victim of some rubbish lines. Then there's Dr Swann, portrayed by Léa Seydoux; who's this film's classic "Bond girl". She's actually great, and plays an important character: who is the subject of a twist at the end! *SPOILER ALERT (sort of)* She survives at the end.
And finally, there's all the other stuff. The cinematography is good, but no Dark Knight. The sets are great, and the sound is fantastic – classic 007 stuff which makes the hairs stand up on your neck. And, oh yeah! The new M is great – played by Ralph Fiennes.
Verdict:
Spectre makes for a brilliant action blockbuster, and a great Bond film; with Daniel Craig being the star of a good cast. The action's fantastic, and the sound and sets are great; though the story telling is inconsistent – certainly not as good as that in Skyfall and Casino Royale at least – and the script isn't as good as in those two. Furthermore, Christoph Waltz' performance as Blofeld seemed too much of a failed attempt to recreate Javier Bardem's portrayal of Silva, and some of the ideas in the film weren't too inspired. However, nothing in the film was bad, far from that; and more concentration on the action made for a fantastically entertaining film and probably one of the best this year, albeit not quite as good as some of its predecessors.
So I give it: 84/100.
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Action-comedy at its very finest - but in a Marvel film!
I got Guardians of the Galaxy on Blu-Ray for my latest birthday, basically because everyone else said it was good, and I wanted to know if it was actually good. The thing is, I didn't think it was going to be actually good; the trailers, adverts and the character Rocket made it look annoying, and maybe even rubbish. But, I have to say: it was actually good. By that, I mean pretty damn good. By that, I mean pretty damn amazing.
However, I was baffled after watching it that it was as good as it was. All the trailers and everything pointed towards it being annoying and crap, and another one of those random Marvel films to ignore. But it was good. No. It was amazing. Baffling. In fact, almost blasphemy towards my opinion.
But I will tell you why it was good.
Everything about it. It's gloriously understated and it doesn't take itself too seriously as a film, and in essence has a great sense of humour – which is unlike many other super hero films nowadays, it is brilliantly acted and has a good feeling to it that can't quite be described.
The first 20 minutes felt like the start of one of those fantastic 70's/80's classic films like Back to the Future: feel good, not concentrating on special effects and using the characters to their full effect through purely great acting and a fantastic script. And there was no concentration (or over use) on special effects or over the top action; it was just introducing you to the characters – in a brilliant way. That is what films like Back to the Future did, and it is gloriously refreshing to see a modern film doing it again; not being without a fantastic and feel good soundtrack, which is essential for a film like this. Having a likable character dancing into the film through feel good 80's music, accompanied by huge opening credits and a great set: it's perfect to kick the film off.
It introduces the characters in such a brilliant way that you instantly love them, and this is done through spot on acting with fantastic personality; particularly through Chris Pratt, who is fantastic throughout as Star-Lord, or Peter Quill, and is the perfect main character for a film like it is, bringing tonnes of personality into it. You know I said Rocket looked annoying earlier on: well, the fact that he wasn't was one of the most shocking things about the whole thing for me. He's actually a great character who adds a good layer of comedy and sarcasm to the film, and this is done through fantastic reciting – by Bradley Cooper – of a well- written script that is actually quite funny. Yep. The film is actually quite funny; but it doesn't concentrate on this aspect too much, and instead also concentrates on the development of the characters and, in essence, the story.
Before I get onto the story, I just want to emphasise how brilliant and refreshing this film is, and how well the characters are developed, and how important each one is for the film's success. Rocket (Bradley Cooper) brings comedy, Groot (Vin Diesel) is, well
Groot. Everyone loves Groot. Drax (Dave Bautista) brings the story to crazy new places and brings a violent edge and a slice of good ol' comedy through ignorance, Gamora (Zoe Saldana) pretty much carries the story and brings a little bit of that much needed romance, Star-Lord, or Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), is the perfect main character/hero and Ronan (Lee Pace) is a great villain who brings a dark under-layer to the film. And I like Yondu, but I can't quite explain why I do. He's just good.
The story, actually, is also great. It isn't predictable or over- the-top. And although it isn't predictable, it is quite a simple story that can be followed easily: and this is great and essential for a film you can sit down and enjoy. However, it did all go a bit mad towards the end; but who cares? A good blockbuster needs a good finale, and the finale of this film was fitting to the rest of the film: you don't want it not to be fitting, now do you?
And some final points, the cinematography is great and there is some brilliant and satisfyingly fun action. It's also refreshingly not as long as a lot of films nowadays, at least, if it is, it doesn't feel like it. And, finally, instead of using CGI loads, it instead utilizes great costume design and make-up for all the aliens – which is great.
Verdict:
Guardians of the Galaxy is a fantastic thrill ride filled with humour and brilliant and unique characters, which never goes too mad or over-the-top and feels just like one of those 70's/80's classics, being gloriously understated and refreshingly un-reliant on length or CGI. Refreshing, fun, brilliantly written and brilliantly acted, this is the best Marvel film I've seen and is pretty much the perfect blockbuster. Screw The Avengers when you've got this.
Well done, James Gunn.
So I give it: 93/100.
Hundraåringen som klev ut genom fönstret och försvann (2013)
Very odd fun
Well
I never thought I'd be watching this film today. It is the most random, perplexingly odd and obscure film I've ever seen. This film is in fact a Swedish made adaption of an English book, starring literally no actor I have heard of.
I would like to say I have never read the book, so I don't know how similar this film is to the book and so I don't care about that and I won't mention it.
The film is fairly low budget, so the actors who star in it aren't exactly big stars; but whoever they did bring in, they did a good job. Every character is unique and has their part to play, and all of them show tonnes of expression and tone. But the actors are helped by a fantastically written script (co-written by Felix Herngen, the director) that is filled with personality, subtle jokes and a dark, violent undertone in a mad, all-over-the-place plot that never fails to entertain and make you laugh; and through countless explosions and heads falling on car bonnets to a screaming woman, it is surprisingly dark.
The story really is all-over-the-place, so you don't know what will happen next; whether it's a dance with Franco or an accidental escape with Albert Einstein's idiot brother, Herbert. It's quite the silly film, if you hadn't guessed.
But it wouldn't have worked without the main character, the 100- year-old man himself: Allan Karlssen (Robert Gustafsson). He personifies the mad and slightly confused manner of the film and carries it through a telling of his life from the age of nine to where he is when he is 100 in flashbacks throughout the film, almost perfectly entwining with the main story; telling you what you need to know to get through it all and, in essence, truly develop the mad character that is Allan. By the end of it, you love him almost as a brother and you know pretty much all there is to know about him; and it works.
Yep. Spoilers are comin'.
However, the film wouldn't have its dark and violent edge if the story hadn't revolved around a violent biker gang – that I forget the name of – who constantly try to retain a brief case that Allan had taken by mistake from one of their members containing 50 million pounds. It is a simple, yet unpredictable story that leads from this; and the biker gang all end up being killed by Allan and his friend by mistake – other than one who is ran over and somehow ends up becoming their friend, of sorts.
No more spoilers. You'll be fine.
Sometimes during the film, with the flashbacks, though, it seems like either the writing goes a bit lazy or it just goes too mad. There is too much talk of how much Allan likes explosions and sometimes it dwindles too much on the flashbacks, and then it simply gets confusing at points, the story a little too hard to follow; leaving you, at points, thinking: "What the hell is going on?!" And then there are silly things that just don't quite need to be there and take up time in the film, but I won't bother to talk about them.
But the flaws in this film are mostly overcome by everything that is good about it. It is charming, funny, likable, well acted, has some very good characters that all have their part to play, and, most of all, it is completely different from anything else I have ever seen and is an entertaining film to watch. When the film finishes, you are left feeling the same as the police officer at the end of it all: feeling confused, amazed and surprised.
Verdict:
There's nothing spectacular about this film, but, as a quirky Swedish film about a 100-year-old man and his shenanigans with a crazy biker gang, it gets the job done; with a funny script, great characters and a unique story in a film filled with personality and a surprisingly dark under layer. It may dwindle a little too much on confusing flashbacks and the fact that Allan (the 100-year-old) likes explosions with a story that may be a bit too mad for the sake of it; but it's still a very entertaining watch and definitely worth a go if you're on Netflix or Amazon Prime.
So I give it: 75/100.
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
Watch. Sleep. Repeat?
Edge of Tomorrow is one of those films that I didn't want to watch enough to see it in the cinema and so got it in Blu-Ray later on in the same year it came out in the cinema. It took me a while to get round to watching it; but it was worth the wait. It's a great film.
Edge of Tomorrow, or Live. Die. Repeat. is a refreshingly unique film. But this comes as a bit of a shock, because the trailers and everything made it look like one of those generic, pretty good at best sci-fi action films; but it has a few things that put it above any other films similar to it. Firstly, its story. This aspect is the one that keeps you watching, nail-biting and on the edge of your seat. It's got all you want for a satisfyingly good story: action, aliens, romance and a good dosage of complicated spacey stuff — but not so complicated that you can't follow it. It follows the odd journey of Lieutenant Colonel Bill Cage, or, for short, Cage (Tom Cruise), from a public figure and advertiser for the US army to a confused soldier in the front line of battle. You are as confused as he is when he is thrown into the front line and proposed a fraud; and you are even more confused when he wakes up in the same position as he did the day he was thrown into the front line and does the exact same things as he did the day before the next day
After dying a gruesome death.
This confusing intro, or, rather, intriguing intro, is what keeps you watching and wanting to find out what the hell is going on. The film is filled with thought provoking moments and teasers for what the hell is going on, and you are told just enough to get you through the film without your brain exploding; and that's a good thing for an action sci-fi film, because if there's no interesting story it's just a bland action film with aliens. This film isn't just a bland action film with aliens, and the story never fails to interest.
However, just having a good story doesn't quite make a good film; because without Tom Cruise I'm not sure this film would be as good as it is. I can't imagine Cage being acted as well by anyone other than Tom Cruise; he acts with sincerity, expression and perfectly fits his role. This film is one example of many that illustrates how good an actor Tom Cruise is, and how much of a positive effect he can have on a film. And you really grow to be attached to Cage and his companion in battle, Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) as the film goes on to its exciting climax.
Now, the climax has some action; which is what I will talk about now. This film has boundless amounts of action, with all the explosions, guns and violent aliens you'd want in a movie like it is. The action is quick-paced and filled with brilliant special effects; with every explosion being as enjoyable as the one before it, and every action sequence being as much of a spectacle as the one before it — and being as exciting as the one before it.
Verdict:
Edge of Tomorrow is as exciting as it is unique; with fantastic action, a clever story, a script that forces you to love the main characters and a gimmick that really does work with the whole living, dying and repeating thing. However, the best thing about the film may be Tom Cruise, as he is so good in the film that I'm not sure it would be as good as it is without him. This is definitely a film I would recommend, but I don't think it would have anywhere near the effect it has on you the first time if you watch it again — hence the 'Repeat?' bit at the start of the review.
But, yeah, it's a great film.
So I give it: 80/100.