Skyfall
I broadly agree with King's review above.
This was a most enjoyable film (I've now seen it twice). Daniel Craig, while still not my ideal Bond, puts in a very good performance as always. Javier Bardem plays the best Bond villain in absolutely ages (I am one of the minority that enjoyed Suantum of Quolace, but my god did that film need a proper villain) and Dame Judi is her usual impeccable self. Ben Wishaw was fun, but I'm going to disagree with King on Naomi Harris. She made no impact at all on me, but I am going to be generous and put this down to her character being badly written.
Structurally, this is the closest we have had to a Christopher Nolan Bond film yet. I don't mean that it is a complicated plot (it's not), but the villain and the story arc in general seems to owe a lot to The Joker and The Dark Knight.
What struck me most about the film was the photography. It's gorgeous. And I mean throughout. This is by some margin the best looking Bond film ever. The first thing I did when I got out of the cinema was to look up the cinematographer (Roger Deakins) on Wikipedia to see what other films he had photographed (lots of Coen Brothers films it turns out).
There are some niggles. In another similarity to The Dark Knight, the villain's plan is so reliant on every behaving in exactly the way he predicts that it becomes ridiculous if one gives it more than a moment's thought. Also, in common with many recent action films, Skyfall hangs its plot on the idea that computers are in some way magic.
Overall this remains the best Bond film is a long while though. The song ain't bad either, despite the attempt to rhyme "Skyfall" with "crumble".
Full Version: Films
Cinematography was fabulous it's true; Roger Deakins is a fine fellow in that regard. Also yes to the 'plan' but then again when has a Bond villain ever had a coherent and semi-feasible plan? I'd say it's pretty damn rare but you let it go 'cos it's Bond. Here however it turns into a niggle as everything else is that much closer to 'reality'.
Still great though.
Still great though.
Yes, I am perfectly happy to ignore those issues.
Bond villains with feasible plans:
Franz Sanchez (Licence To Kill). His plan is "sell lots of drugs, don't get caught".
Kronsteen (From Russia With Love). "Steal hi-tech kit from the Russians and sell it back to them"
Other than that...yeah.
Bond villains with feasible plans:
Franz Sanchez (Licence To Kill). His plan is "sell lots of drugs, don't get caught".
Kronsteen (From Russia With Love). "Steal hi-tech kit from the Russians and sell it back to them"
Other than that...yeah.
Argo
In 1979 Iranian students invaded the US embassy in Tehran, capturing all but six embassy staff members. The six slip out to the Canadian ambassador's residence where they hole up to await developments. 10 weeks later they are still there and the CIA have to come up with a plan to extract them. Enter Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) with a really bad idea...
Really good, more-or-less factual film with an impeccable 70's feel, from the vintage Warner Bros logo at the top to the huge glasses worn by at least three of the main players. Affleck has pulled another really decent acting/directing ploy out of the bag. Here he expertly balances the tension of life in Iran with the ridiculous, comedy nature of Hollywood; producing a film that is both funny and nerve-wracking can't be easy. There is a point where the film clearly diverts slightly from reality in order to play up to cinematic convention but it gets away with it due to what goes before (though I could have done without the ever-so-slightly pat reunion ending - a 70's film would have left it).
Anyway - really worth a look.
4/5
In 1979 Iranian students invaded the US embassy in Tehran, capturing all but six embassy staff members. The six slip out to the Canadian ambassador's residence where they hole up to await developments. 10 weeks later they are still there and the CIA have to come up with a plan to extract them. Enter Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) with a really bad idea...
Really good, more-or-less factual film with an impeccable 70's feel, from the vintage Warner Bros logo at the top to the huge glasses worn by at least three of the main players. Affleck has pulled another really decent acting/directing ploy out of the bag. Here he expertly balances the tension of life in Iran with the ridiculous, comedy nature of Hollywood; producing a film that is both funny and nerve-wracking can't be easy. There is a point where the film clearly diverts slightly from reality in order to play up to cinematic convention but it gets away with it due to what goes before (though I could have done without the ever-so-slightly pat reunion ending - a 70's film would have left it).
Anyway - really worth a look.
4/5
Oh, and I think Le Chiffre's plan of short selling stock and engineering a terrorist incident to artificially decrese stock value would have worked. Not sure about the whole 'high-stakes poker game plan' though.
Headhunters
Diminutive Swedish corporate headhunter Roger Brown is married to a beautiful, statuesque blonde, living in a modern palace of glass and steel and subsidising both by stealing artwork from his clients. However, he takes on more than he bargains for when he steals from his latest victim; an ex-army special forces-turned CEO.
This film is one that cropped up in Empire's top 20 of the year and yet it still took me by surprise: I was expecting another efficient, chilly, Scandi-thriller; entertaining but not necessarily fun. This film is both: The main protagonist, Roger Brown (the deliberately Anglicised name provides amusement on its own amongst the Oles and Claus's), is a scumbag, and for a while there's very little to empathise with. However, as the film progresses into a personal nightmare for the man, he survives so much crap (at one point quite literally) that you eventually start rooting for him to get away with it. The cast is solid and the action efficient and as long as you bear in mind that it's actually a comedy (much like Fight Club is) you'll have a great deal of fun.
Any film that can make a plot point out of being sandwiched between two grotesquely fat policemen in a car deserves a look...right?
Watch it before the inevitable US remake starring Mark Whalberg. 4/5
Diminutive Swedish corporate headhunter Roger Brown is married to a beautiful, statuesque blonde, living in a modern palace of glass and steel and subsidising both by stealing artwork from his clients. However, he takes on more than he bargains for when he steals from his latest victim; an ex-army special forces-turned CEO.
This film is one that cropped up in Empire's top 20 of the year and yet it still took me by surprise: I was expecting another efficient, chilly, Scandi-thriller; entertaining but not necessarily fun. This film is both: The main protagonist, Roger Brown (the deliberately Anglicised name provides amusement on its own amongst the Oles and Claus's), is a scumbag, and for a while there's very little to empathise with. However, as the film progresses into a personal nightmare for the man, he survives so much crap (at one point quite literally) that you eventually start rooting for him to get away with it. The cast is solid and the action efficient and as long as you bear in mind that it's actually a comedy (much like Fight Club is) you'll have a great deal of fun.
Any film that can make a plot point out of being sandwiched between two grotesquely fat policemen in a car deserves a look...right?
Watch it before the inevitable US remake starring Mark Whalberg. 4/5
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Basically it's the first 6 chapters of the book...
You probably know if you're going to watch this already: if you like LotR then you are going to want to watch this - if not don't bother. As to which of the six variations of format to watch; I chose 2D, 28 fps so as to get the classic cinematic experience.
Firstly it's great; a solid four star film. Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo, the dwarves are good, the settings are wonderful and the action is plentiful.
With that said I'll get down to the niggles: The main problem is that it is a bit baggy; while I didn't feel bored at any point on its 3-hour running time there was plenty I thought didn't really add to the narrative of this, individual film. It may be that once it is presented as part of a trilogy it may make more sense but every time the film departed from the book's narrative to add something from the appendices it jarred with me. The addition of Azog the Defiler for instance (the orc that killed Thorin's grandfather and was in turn killed by Thorin in the book) gives Thorin something to do other than grumble, and brings forward Bilbo's hero moment, but their encounters felt tacked on and rather unnecessary. Unnecessary too was much of the bumf surrounding Radagast the Brown: While Sylvester McCoy's character was engaging and well designed (and his exposition presumably setting up off-page happenings in the next film), I could have done without a CG hedgehog called Sebastian ("Bastion! Nooo!") or a catch that bunny sled scene.
Also - whereas in the past Jackson used a fair mixture of CG, miniatures and make-up, this time it's mostly CG/motion capture stuff. To be fair all the Goblin-Town stuff looks very good, however; re-watching LotR you can really tell the difference between the fantastic prosthetics and the slightly flat CG stuff. I missed the real, chittering goblins and the bigatures and fear it will all look slightly ropey in a few years' time.
Anyway as I said in the beginning; it's great 4/5
Basically it's the first 6 chapters of the book...
You probably know if you're going to watch this already: if you like LotR then you are going to want to watch this - if not don't bother. As to which of the six variations of format to watch; I chose 2D, 28 fps so as to get the classic cinematic experience.
Firstly it's great; a solid four star film. Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo, the dwarves are good, the settings are wonderful and the action is plentiful.
With that said I'll get down to the niggles: The main problem is that it is a bit baggy; while I didn't feel bored at any point on its 3-hour running time there was plenty I thought didn't really add to the narrative of this, individual film. It may be that once it is presented as part of a trilogy it may make more sense but every time the film departed from the book's narrative to add something from the appendices it jarred with me. The addition of Azog the Defiler for instance (the orc that killed Thorin's grandfather and was in turn killed by Thorin in the book) gives Thorin something to do other than grumble, and brings forward Bilbo's hero moment, but their encounters felt tacked on and rather unnecessary. Unnecessary too was much of the bumf surrounding Radagast the Brown: While Sylvester McCoy's character was engaging and well designed (and his exposition presumably setting up off-page happenings in the next film), I could have done without a CG hedgehog called Sebastian ("Bastion! Nooo!") or a catch that bunny sled scene.
Also - whereas in the past Jackson used a fair mixture of CG, miniatures and make-up, this time it's mostly CG/motion capture stuff. To be fair all the Goblin-Town stuff looks very good, however; re-watching LotR you can really tell the difference between the fantastic prosthetics and the slightly flat CG stuff. I missed the real, chittering goblins and the bigatures and fear it will all look slightly ropey in a few years' time.
Anyway as I said in the beginning; it's great 4/5
Life of Pi
The owner of an Indian zoo decides to move his family and animals to Canada. On the way their ship sinks leaving the youngest son Pi as the only survivor on a lifeboat with a zebra, an orang-utan, a hyena and a Bengal tiger called Richard Parker. Or is it an allegory? Who can say?
I really liked this film - it's quite slow, thoughtful and more concerned with the nature of faith than a thrilling tale of survival on the high seas. The visuals are stunning with the 3D proving to be not annoying and perhaps adding to the fantastical aura of the tale.
Suraj Sharma is brilliant as the titular Pi, especially when you consider that he was mostly acting to a blue background and a tennis ball in place of a Bengal tiger. For that matter the tiger is also excellent; not once did I stop to think that there wasn't actually a tiger called Richard Parker in the lifeboat.
Some may find the thoughtful air, slow pace and lack of firm conclusions frustrating but they are inherent in the source text, something that has been handled with care by the screenwriters and director Ang Lee.
I'm with Evil Jenny Dannyboy. 4.5/5
The owner of an Indian zoo decides to move his family and animals to Canada. On the way their ship sinks leaving the youngest son Pi as the only survivor on a lifeboat with a zebra, an orang-utan, a hyena and a Bengal tiger called Richard Parker. Or is it an allegory? Who can say?
I really liked this film - it's quite slow, thoughtful and more concerned with the nature of faith than a thrilling tale of survival on the high seas. The visuals are stunning with the 3D proving to be not annoying and perhaps adding to the fantastical aura of the tale.
Suraj Sharma is brilliant as the titular Pi, especially when you consider that he was mostly acting to a blue background and a tennis ball in place of a Bengal tiger. For that matter the tiger is also excellent; not once did I stop to think that there wasn't actually a tiger called Richard Parker in the lifeboat.
Some may find the thoughtful air, slow pace and lack of firm conclusions frustrating but they are inherent in the source text, something that has been handled with care by the screenwriters and director Ang Lee.
I'm with Evil Jenny Dannyboy. 4.5/5
Pretty much agree in full with King's review of The Hobbit so I won't post my own.
Instead you'll be pleased to know that I have been watching a variety of dross so that you don't have to. Here goes:
Total Recall
This is the remake starring Colin Farrell of "has he ever made a good film?"** fame. If you think you've seen some pointless remakes of films before then prepare to be mistaken. This is the pointless remake of all pointless remakes. Where the orginial was funny, satirical and starred a gloriously gurning Arnie, this one is utterly humourless, devoid of any intelligent political comment and stars a wooden Farrell. The only fair swap is Kate Beckinsale for Sharon Stone.
Avoid.
Jack Reacher
[Spoiler warning, if any of you are bothered] Tom Cruise is miscast (as he is virtually every one of his films) as Jack Reacher, former military police officer who is now a drifter. At the start of the film a sniper guns down six innocent Pittsburgh residents in an apparently motiveless attack. Compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence leads the police to a quick arrest, however the accused (James Barr, a former military sniper) refuses to confess to the murders and instead asks for Jack Reacher. It turns out that Reach and Barr have a history and Reacher arrives determined to ensure that Barr is found guilty of the murders. Soon though, his finely-honed detecting skills lead him to think that the case isn't so simple.
As I've said, Cruise is miscast and I don't suppose you really need me to talk about his performance. You can all imagine it I'm sure and it certainly didn't stray from what I was expecting from him. Also miscast is Rosamund Pike as Barr's defense attorney. Frankly she gives a bizarre performance here which totally lacks in personality. Also, she seems to have lost the ability to do a convincing American accent despite appearing perfectly capable of one in Fracture a few years back. David Oyelowo is also miscast as the investigating police officer.
The film is a mess really. Aside from the issues with the cast, the plot itself is simply not believable. The behaviour of the bad guys in killing five innocent people to cover up the murder of the sixth victim just doesn't jive with the motive, which is basically to assist with a series of slightly dodgy property acquisitions. Also, the main bad guy behind these essentially only vaguely illegal property dealings is the most ridiculously sadistic, one-eyed caricature of a man that I very nearly laughed out loud during some of his speeches.
Some of the action scenes are handled well, particularly the final shootout which contains some genuine tension. This isn't anywhere near enough to rescue what is at heart a very silly film.
** The answer is actually yes: In Bruges.
Instead you'll be pleased to know that I have been watching a variety of dross so that you don't have to. Here goes:
Total Recall
This is the remake starring Colin Farrell of "has he ever made a good film?"** fame. If you think you've seen some pointless remakes of films before then prepare to be mistaken. This is the pointless remake of all pointless remakes. Where the orginial was funny, satirical and starred a gloriously gurning Arnie, this one is utterly humourless, devoid of any intelligent political comment and stars a wooden Farrell. The only fair swap is Kate Beckinsale for Sharon Stone.
Avoid.
Jack Reacher
[Spoiler warning, if any of you are bothered] Tom Cruise is miscast (as he is virtually every one of his films) as Jack Reacher, former military police officer who is now a drifter. At the start of the film a sniper guns down six innocent Pittsburgh residents in an apparently motiveless attack. Compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence leads the police to a quick arrest, however the accused (James Barr, a former military sniper) refuses to confess to the murders and instead asks for Jack Reacher. It turns out that Reach and Barr have a history and Reacher arrives determined to ensure that Barr is found guilty of the murders. Soon though, his finely-honed detecting skills lead him to think that the case isn't so simple.
As I've said, Cruise is miscast and I don't suppose you really need me to talk about his performance. You can all imagine it I'm sure and it certainly didn't stray from what I was expecting from him. Also miscast is Rosamund Pike as Barr's defense attorney. Frankly she gives a bizarre performance here which totally lacks in personality. Also, she seems to have lost the ability to do a convincing American accent despite appearing perfectly capable of one in Fracture a few years back. David Oyelowo is also miscast as the investigating police officer.
The film is a mess really. Aside from the issues with the cast, the plot itself is simply not believable. The behaviour of the bad guys in killing five innocent people to cover up the murder of the sixth victim just doesn't jive with the motive, which is basically to assist with a series of slightly dodgy property acquisitions. Also, the main bad guy behind these essentially only vaguely illegal property dealings is the most ridiculously sadistic, one-eyed caricature of a man that I very nearly laughed out loud during some of his speeches.
Some of the action scenes are handled well, particularly the final shootout which contains some genuine tension. This isn't anywhere near enough to rescue what is at heart a very silly film.
** The answer is actually yes: In Bruges.
Life of Pi vs Evil Jenny
I believe my only objection was only to the likelihood of surviving being trapped on a lifeboat with a starving tiger. Thankfully I have super-power like abilities with regards to suspension of disbelief and though the film was good. I would have given it perhaps 4/5. In fact, I am hereby, right now, giving it 4/5. There.
"Shite films" vs Jonnyboy
Oh and I'd have given Jack Reacher...3.8/5. Good fun. I thought Cruise did just fine. Slightly comic but then I think the books are too (I've read one).
Total Recall - again about 3.5/5 - good fun. A bit shallow and linear. Lots more potential to have made it actually clever. Admittedly a full one point of that rating is indeed for the oh-so-tightly-clad Kate.
Sadly I can't compare scores to Jonnyboy as he seems to have finally cracked and stopped using numbers outside his job.
I believe my only objection was only to the likelihood of surviving being trapped on a lifeboat with a starving tiger. Thankfully I have super-power like abilities with regards to suspension of disbelief and though the film was good. I would have given it perhaps 4/5. In fact, I am hereby, right now, giving it 4/5. There.
"Shite films" vs Jonnyboy
Oh and I'd have given Jack Reacher...3.8/5. Good fun. I thought Cruise did just fine. Slightly comic but then I think the books are too (I've read one).
Total Recall - again about 3.5/5 - good fun. A bit shallow and linear. Lots more potential to have made it actually clever. Admittedly a full one point of that rating is indeed for the oh-so-tightly-clad Kate.
Sadly I can't compare scores to Jonnyboy as he seems to have finally cracked and stopped using numbers outside his job.
QUOTE(DanSon @ 21-Jan-13, 0:36)
Life of Pi vs Evil Jenny
I believe my only objection was only to the likelihood of surviving being trapped on a lifeboat with a starving tiger.
I believe my only objection was only to the likelihood of surviving being trapped on a lifeboat with a starving tiger.
...but you are quite happy with a floating, carnivorous island populated entirely by meerkats?
Hmm looking at Colin Farrell's filmography it would appear that JB is correct in his assertation that it is filled with more shite than a portaloo at Glastonbury. However there is the odd tosheroon in there along with In Bruges but not enough to spare him when the revolution comes.
Speaking of revolutions:
Les Miserables
The famousest of musicals comes to the big screen; with added mud, live singing and costumes by Jess.
The first thing you notice about the film is the huge scope the cinema allows the story as we are introduced to our hero Jean Valjean (Huge Action) through a sweeping crane shot through a CG galleon being dragged into dry dock through towering waves. The second thing you notice is that they are singing...they're still singing...why are they still singing? Oh it's one of those musicals. Hmm.
The singing is pretty good - not as clean as I imagine it is on stage because they're busy acting through song rather than just singing. On the whole this works very well - it just takes some getting used to. Anne Hathaway knocks I dreamed a dream out of the park; reclaiming the song from SuBo with a raw, angry, defiant and broken performance that will probably win her the Oscar. Eddie Redmayne is very good, Russell Crowe isn't terrible and Huge Action does the heavy lifting but I found his singing voice highly irritating.
In the end it is a good film with some ragged edges (some of the Paris sets feels very soundstagey), some wonderful costumes and some great performances, but it wasn't for me. Unlike the some in the sobbing girls cinema I wasn't overly stirred by the preposterous plot or the tunes that were clearly ripped off from the South Park Movie...in fact I think Matt and Trey might have a case against this Victor Hugo chap...
3/5
Watch out for: Huge's shirts, Eddie's cravat & trousers & blue 'M-notch-lapelled' jacket and Gavroche's outfit. All lovingly crafted by Jess amongst others.
QUOTE(King @ 21-Jan-13, 9:56)
QUOTE(DanSon @ 21-Jan-13, 0:36)
Life of Pi vs Evil Jenny
I believe my only objection was only to the likelihood of surviving being trapped on a lifeboat with a starving tiger.
I believe my only objection was only to the likelihood of surviving being trapped on a lifeboat with a starving tiger.
...but you are quite happy with a floating, carnivorous island populated entirely by meerkats?
Yes. That COULD actually happen.
QUOTE
Hmm looking at Colin Farrell's filmography it would appear that JB is correct in his assertation that it is filled with more shite than a portaloo at Glastonbury. However there is the odd tosheroon in there along with In Bruges but not enough to spare him when the revolution comes.
Didn't he play Bullseye in Dare Devil? If so I thought he stole the show.
QUOTE
Didn't he play Bullseye in Dare Devil? If so I thought he stole the show.
You cannot be using Daredevil as an example of a good Colin Farrell film. It may well be the worst film he's been in - terrible in every respect.
QUOTE(jonnyploy @ 22-Jan-13, 8:48)
QUOTE
Didn't he play Bullseye in Dare Devil? If so I thought he stole the show.
You cannot be using Daredevil as an example of a good Colin Farrell film. It may well be the worst film he's been in - terrible in every respect.
You have far too much taste. It's like a handicap.
Daredevil: A solid 3/5
QUOTE(DanSon @ 23-Jan-13, 0:40)
QUOTE(jonnyploy @ 22-Jan-13, 8:48)
QUOTE
Didn't he play Bullseye in Dare Devil? If so I thought he stole the show.
You cannot be using Daredevil as an example of a good Colin Farrell film. It may well be the worst film he's been in - terrible in every respect.
You have far too much taste. It's like a handicap.
Daredevil: A solid 3/5
Dan, it's not nice to troll the film thread - it's usually so polite here.
Daredevil is utter bobbins; if I'd paid money to see it I would have been most upset. Not as upset as when you all forced me to pay good money to see Wild Wild West but still pretty peeved.
QUOTE(King @ 23-Jan-13, 8:05)
QUOTE(DanSon @ 23-Jan-13, 0:40)
QUOTE(jonnyploy @ 22-Jan-13, 8:48)
QUOTE
Didn't he play Bullseye in Dare Devil? If so I thought he stole the show.
You cannot be using Daredevil as an example of a good Colin Farrell film. It may well be the worst film he's been in - terrible in every respect.
You have far too much taste. It's like a handicap.
Daredevil: A solid 3/5
Dan, it's not nice to troll the film thread - it's usually so polite here.
Daredevil is utter bobbins; if I'd paid money to see it I would have been most upset. Not as upset as when you all forced me to pay good money to see Wild Wild West but still pretty peeved.
I troll not! I enjoyed Daredevil. It's up there with the like of Resident Evil and Godzilla.
Wild wild west however WAS a pile of steaming poo. No disagreement there. Worst film ever was probably the Avengers (the one with Sean Connery, a film I understand he disowned) closely followed by eXistanZ (sorry Tart).
I'm writing this from the College Arms just opposite Haileybury having just shared two pints with a uni friend who is now Head of History and described Trotsky as "actually a really good bloke".
Urrp.
Django Unchained
Really good fun, Blaxsploitation Western (Southern) with some fine performances (particularly from Christoph Waltz) but about 20-30 mins too long. I felt Jaimie Foxx's titular character was a little hard to warm to, especially against Waltz's Dr Schultz, but he had just enough cool to pull it off in the end. No room for any strong females this time round either: Kerry Washington is given little to do other than look scared. And Quentin really should have cut himself out and finished on the first bloodbath.
Despite these points the first 90 mins has enough to push the whole film into worth a cinema trip status.
But not Best Film at the Oscars.
3.9/5
Really good fun, Blaxsploitation Western (Southern) with some fine performances (particularly from Christoph Waltz) but about 20-30 mins too long. I felt Jaimie Foxx's titular character was a little hard to warm to, especially against Waltz's Dr Schultz, but he had just enough cool to pull it off in the end. No room for any strong females this time round either: Kerry Washington is given little to do other than look scared. And Quentin really should have cut himself out and finished on the first bloodbath.
Despite these points the first 90 mins has enough to push the whole film into worth a cinema trip status.
But not Best Film at the Oscars.
3.9/5
The Lone Ranger
An origin story for the ultimate White Hat cowboy starring one of the Winkvoss twins and Captain Jack Sparrow, helmed by the director of Rango and produced by the man mainly responsible for Transformers. Not a promising start and it would appear that many reviewers looked no further before sharpening their knives. However I went along looking for some unchallenging, rollicking action and boy did I get it.
The film certainly has its problems; it's overly long (at 149 mins), it has Johnny Depp playing Native American amongst a crowd of Native American actors and the tone varies wildly from scene to scene, but somehow Gore Verbinski has marshalled the elements to create an entertaining whole. Starting with a young Lone Ranger fan in 1933 finding an aged Tonto in a carnival and moving swiftly down a less than reliable memory lane, the film is divided and supported by its tale-within-a-tale structure (a bit like the Princess Bride, though Depp is no Colombo) that allows it to play fast and loose with some aspects of the mythos.
Armie Hammer is good value as the priggish John Reid, Johnny Depp keeps it just to the right side of annoying, playing Tonto as an intelligent man hiding behind a different sort of mask, and Bill Fitchner is has a lot of fun with his role as obvious villain (Tom Wilkinson plays the unobvious villain, though obviously he's still obvious).
This is a $250m movie and, given its lack of success in the states, quite possibly the last time Gore Verbinski will be given that sort of cash to spend, but it's worth it with beautiful sweeping shots of Monument Valley and the Grand Canyon (geography is not one of the film's strong points given that it is set in Texas), and no less than two separate train-borne action sequences with plenty of practical FX. However, although I was enjoying the film throughout - it easily passed Kermode's '6 Laugh test' for a comedy - it was heading for forgettable mountain until that final sequence: A huge dual train chase with bad guys, hostages, heroes, silver and Silver (the horse) swapping trains and tracks in a frantic race all set to the William Tell overture. It's a magnificent set piece and worth the price of admission alone.
4/5
An origin story for the ultimate White Hat cowboy starring one of the Winkvoss twins and Captain Jack Sparrow, helmed by the director of Rango and produced by the man mainly responsible for Transformers. Not a promising start and it would appear that many reviewers looked no further before sharpening their knives. However I went along looking for some unchallenging, rollicking action and boy did I get it.
The film certainly has its problems; it's overly long (at 149 mins), it has Johnny Depp playing Native American amongst a crowd of Native American actors and the tone varies wildly from scene to scene, but somehow Gore Verbinski has marshalled the elements to create an entertaining whole. Starting with a young Lone Ranger fan in 1933 finding an aged Tonto in a carnival and moving swiftly down a less than reliable memory lane, the film is divided and supported by its tale-within-a-tale structure (a bit like the Princess Bride, though Depp is no Colombo) that allows it to play fast and loose with some aspects of the mythos.
Armie Hammer is good value as the priggish John Reid, Johnny Depp keeps it just to the right side of annoying, playing Tonto as an intelligent man hiding behind a different sort of mask, and Bill Fitchner is has a lot of fun with his role as obvious villain (Tom Wilkinson plays the unobvious villain, though obviously he's still obvious).
This is a $250m movie and, given its lack of success in the states, quite possibly the last time Gore Verbinski will be given that sort of cash to spend, but it's worth it with beautiful sweeping shots of Monument Valley and the Grand Canyon (geography is not one of the film's strong points given that it is set in Texas), and no less than two separate train-borne action sequences with plenty of practical FX. However, although I was enjoying the film throughout - it easily passed Kermode's '6 Laugh test' for a comedy - it was heading for forgettable mountain until that final sequence: A huge dual train chase with bad guys, hostages, heroes, silver and Silver (the horse) swapping trains and tracks in a frantic race all set to the William Tell overture. It's a magnificent set piece and worth the price of admission alone.
4/5
I find 4/5 difficult to believe. Particularly for a film directed by the person responsible for the most inexplicably popular film franchise of all time, Pirates of the Caribbean. You have intrigued me though, and I may go and see it.
Pacific Rim
Idris Elba, Guillermo Del Toro and lots of this:
Awesome.
4.7/5
Pacific Rim
Idris Elba, Guillermo Del Toro and lots of this:
Awesome.
4.7/5
Genius.
Personal business has been getting in the way of precious cinema time so I missed Pac Rim in Camberley unfortunately.
I'll stand by 4 but I would also say that I really like the first PotC (but the rest are utter bobbins) so that may affect things.
Personal business has been getting in the way of precious cinema time so I missed Pac Rim in Camberley unfortunately.
I'll stand by 4 but I would also say that I really like the first PotC (but the rest are utter bobbins) so that may affect things.
Lincoln
Speilberg's account of the last few months of Lincoln's lifeas he tries to push the 13th amendment (to ban slavery) through the House of Representatives and end the civil war (no slaying of vampires though; must have been too busy).
This really is rather excellent; all the reviews that mention attention to detail, 'West Wing 1863' and Day-Lewis being quite good are correct. You don't doubt for a moment that this Lincoln is exactly as he was and, while many of the supporting characters are bumptious caricatures, this feeling extends to the rest of the film. Take a snack though - it's 2.5 hrs long.
4/5
Speilberg's account of the last few months of Lincoln's lifeas he tries to push the 13th amendment (to ban slavery) through the House of Representatives and end the civil war (no slaying of vampires though; must have been too busy).
This really is rather excellent; all the reviews that mention attention to detail, 'West Wing 1863' and Day-Lewis being quite good are correct. You don't doubt for a moment that this Lincoln is exactly as he was and, while many of the supporting characters are bumptious caricatures, this feeling extends to the rest of the film. Take a snack though - it's 2.5 hrs long.
4/5
Hang on, are we supposed to be using the word "bumptious" correctly now? No one told me!
I agree with your review of Lincoln by the way, twas decent.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, on the other hand, was not decent.
White House Down
Roland Emmerich returns to destroy the White House again, albeit a lot more gradually than when he first had aliens blow it up in Independence Day.
I enjoyed this. It's silly, but it's good silly in the same way that Independence Day was, as opposed to boring silly in the way that 2012 was.
Even Channing Tatum's inability to enunciate didn't spoil the fun for me, nor did Jamie Foxx's incredibly unconvincing POTUS.
Elysium
Interesting, but flawed.
Matt Damon is good, Jodie Foster has a very strange accent throughout (actually it's about five different accents running in a loop).
I would have preferred an actual Halo movie, but it's worth watching if you get the opportunity.
I agree with your review of Lincoln by the way, twas decent.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, on the other hand, was not decent.
White House Down
Roland Emmerich returns to destroy the White House again, albeit a lot more gradually than when he first had aliens blow it up in Independence Day.
I enjoyed this. It's silly, but it's good silly in the same way that Independence Day was, as opposed to boring silly in the way that 2012 was.
Even Channing Tatum's inability to enunciate didn't spoil the fun for me, nor did Jamie Foxx's incredibly unconvincing POTUS.
Elysium
Interesting, but flawed.
Matt Damon is good, Jodie Foster has a very strange accent throughout (actually it's about five different accents running in a loop).
I would have preferred an actual Halo movie, but it's worth watching if you get the opportunity.
I just thought it was an opportunity to put the image of an extravagantly-chested Tommy Lee Jones into the heads of the collective whilst still being technically correct - the best kind of correct!
The World's End
Horrifically terrible. Only thing worth watching it for is catching glimpses of Hertfordshire. Some of it was filmed in Welwyn Garden City, so if any of you are familiar with that part of the world...
0.5/5
Horrifically terrible. Only thing worth watching it for is catching glimpses of Hertfordshire. Some of it was filmed in Welwyn Garden City, so if any of you are familiar with that part of the world...
0.5/5
What didn't you like about it? I missed it at the cinema and I'm having to wait until it rocks up on Sky or something, so interested to know what the deal is.
I can't not watch Hot Fuzz if it is on telly, and I really liked Shaun of the Dead too (though Hot Fuzz wins in my opinion), so I was expecting this to be a bit of a banker in the "Jonnyboy will like this film" stakes.
I can't not watch Hot Fuzz if it is on telly, and I really liked Shaun of the Dead too (though Hot Fuzz wins in my opinion), so I was expecting this to be a bit of a banker in the "Jonnyboy will like this film" stakes.
Oh dear, once again I totally disagree with Woz on the subjest of a film; I thought The World's End was great, even if it is not as immediately likeable as StoD or HF.
I think it will take multiple viewings before you get the most out of it, unlike HF where the humour is in overtly subverting the action genre, this film is much more subtle. It takes a while to get going, carefully setting the scene, collecting the gang and setting up jokes for later. It's not until things start getting weird that the laughs really get going. Unfortunately most of the obvious-laugh moments were given away in the trailer which means you have to concentrate to get the most out of it. Surprisingly in this film it's Frost who is the more sympathetic lead and his performance is a world away from Mike, Ed or Danny - he also gets the best Cornetto moment of the three films.
It's a study on addiction and pathos and represents a shift from the formula that worked so well in the previous two Cornetto films. It's definitely harder to like but, I think it will stick with you and reward you for repeated viewings.
4/5
I think it will take multiple viewings before you get the most out of it, unlike HF where the humour is in overtly subverting the action genre, this film is much more subtle. It takes a while to get going, carefully setting the scene, collecting the gang and setting up jokes for later. It's not until things start getting weird that the laughs really get going. Unfortunately most of the obvious-laugh moments were given away in the trailer which means you have to concentrate to get the most out of it. Surprisingly in this film it's Frost who is the more sympathetic lead and his performance is a world away from Mike, Ed or Danny - he also gets the best Cornetto moment of the three films.
It's a study on addiction and pathos and represents a shift from the formula that worked so well in the previous two Cornetto films. It's definitely harder to like but, I think it will stick with you and reward you for repeated viewings.
4/5
The Host
I've read the source novel and found it quite fun if unchallenging (apart from upping Twilight's love triangle to a square with three sides...sort of) and I really like Saoirse Ronan so I was positively inclined to the film. However it soon palled when I noticed the running time of 2 hours. Two long dragging hours that suffer from the fact that one character is a voice in Ronan's head meaning she spends much of her time looking faintly confusedly into the middle distance.
Still it all looks nice.
Probably to be avoided. 2/5
I've read the source novel and found it quite fun if unchallenging (apart from upping Twilight's love triangle to a square with three sides...sort of) and I really like Saoirse Ronan so I was positively inclined to the film. However it soon palled when I noticed the running time of 2 hours. Two long dragging hours that suffer from the fact that one character is a voice in Ronan's head meaning she spends much of her time looking faintly confusedly into the middle distance.
Still it all looks nice.
Probably to be avoided. 2/5
Tardy but:
Ender's Game
Overall not too bad; they've made a good fist of converting the plot to the screen; the casting is good, the set pieces are impressive and it makes a fairly interesting and unusual sci-fi film. However, it doesn't really capture the essence of the novel; all the Battle Room stuff is really incidental to the geo-politics and the concept of forging kids into weapons, initially for defence but all the time with an eye on power. The film mostly excises Peter and Val, divorcing proceedings from Earth and losing much of the nuance leaving the kids floating about in space for no tangible reason and the end, when it comes does feel like a computer game (as it should), but the reveal doesn't have the impact it should. Ender shoulders his burden, wanders outside and sorts out his future in about five minutes. So as a wooshy sci-fi it's not bad, as an adaptation it's not great. Overall OK.
3/5
Ender's Game
Overall not too bad; they've made a good fist of converting the plot to the screen; the casting is good, the set pieces are impressive and it makes a fairly interesting and unusual sci-fi film. However, it doesn't really capture the essence of the novel; all the Battle Room stuff is really incidental to the geo-politics and the concept of forging kids into weapons, initially for defence but all the time with an eye on power. The film mostly excises Peter and Val, divorcing proceedings from Earth and losing much of the nuance leaving the kids floating about in space for no tangible reason and the end, when it comes does feel like a computer game (as it should), but the reveal doesn't have the impact it should. Ender shoulders his burden, wanders outside and sorts out his future in about five minutes. So as a wooshy sci-fi it's not bad, as an adaptation it's not great. Overall OK.
3/5
Having just reread Enders Game and Shadow the film frustrated me a lot. They changed Ender too much -- that scene when they showed his first battle as a Salamander totally missed the point. Then there were a lot of "in references" that seemed to be aimed at those who knew the novel, but without any context in the film.
I'd agree with King though, I don't think the film was bad -- I'd probably have liked it if I had no idea where it came from.
I'd agree with King though, I don't think the film was bad -- I'd probably have liked it if I had no idea where it came from.
Anchorman 2
I'm not a huge fan of the original, finding it much more fun to quote than to actually watch, and so I wasn't really expecting much of this one given the mixed reviews it has received. My expectations were well and truly met. It's fine I guess; there were a few chuckles and the odd smirk but no-one in the cinema was laughing uproariously and the guy next to me was bored enough to check Twitter during the rather random 'shark diversion'.
The satirical aspect mocking modern 24 hour news was promising but is kind of dropped in favour of re-treading old ground in a less amusing manner: jazz flute solo? Brian Fantana's cupboard? newsreader rumble? all present and correct. This last is particularly disappointing; the first rumble worked due to its slow build to ridiculous proportions with the added cameo value and the crash cut to "That escalated quickly!". This rumble lacks the surprise or payoff and instead relies on more action and bigger cameos none of which gains extra laughs.
There's still time for this one to build its following, like the first, on DVD, but UNlike the first, I really can't think of anything to quote at you.
It's not promising.
2/5
I'm not a huge fan of the original, finding it much more fun to quote than to actually watch, and so I wasn't really expecting much of this one given the mixed reviews it has received. My expectations were well and truly met. It's fine I guess; there were a few chuckles and the odd smirk but no-one in the cinema was laughing uproariously and the guy next to me was bored enough to check Twitter during the rather random 'shark diversion'.
The satirical aspect mocking modern 24 hour news was promising but is kind of dropped in favour of re-treading old ground in a less amusing manner: jazz flute solo? Brian Fantana's cupboard? newsreader rumble? all present and correct. This last is particularly disappointing; the first rumble worked due to its slow build to ridiculous proportions with the added cameo value and the crash cut to "That escalated quickly!". This rumble lacks the surprise or payoff and instead relies on more action and bigger cameos none of which gains extra laughs.
There's still time for this one to build its following, like the first, on DVD, but UNlike the first, I really can't think of anything to quote at you.
It's not promising.
2/5
Trance
In much the same way that Joss Whedon took a break from film Avengers by filming Much Ado... in his back garden, Danny Boyle took a break from the Olympics by making this twisty thriller that explores the nature of memory.
James McAvoy stars as Simon, an employee at an auction house who acts as inside man as Franck (Vincent Cassel) and his 3 goons steal a £25m Goya. Things go awry when Simon is hit on the head during the robbery and can't remember where he stashed the painting once the dust settles. Enter Rosario Dawson's hypnotherapist to help sort things out...
I quite enjoyed this; though I could see more or less where it was heading quite early. It was stylishly shot with many a disconcerting angle and fuzzy focus playing around with one's perception of what is 'real' and what is just in our protagonists' heads. It's not perfect; it's hard to really care for any of the leads in the end and its secondary characters barely rise above 'fetching an orange sherbert' level henchmen, but it is mostly an enjoyable experience never-the-less. And if you happen to have a thing for Rosario Dawson...well you'll just have to watch it. Trust me.
3.5/5
In much the same way that Joss Whedon took a break from film Avengers by filming Much Ado... in his back garden, Danny Boyle took a break from the Olympics by making this twisty thriller that explores the nature of memory.
James McAvoy stars as Simon, an employee at an auction house who acts as inside man as Franck (Vincent Cassel) and his 3 goons steal a £25m Goya. Things go awry when Simon is hit on the head during the robbery and can't remember where he stashed the painting once the dust settles. Enter Rosario Dawson's hypnotherapist to help sort things out...
I quite enjoyed this; though I could see more or less where it was heading quite early. It was stylishly shot with many a disconcerting angle and fuzzy focus playing around with one's perception of what is 'real' and what is just in our protagonists' heads. It's not perfect; it's hard to really care for any of the leads in the end and its secondary characters barely rise above 'fetching an orange sherbert' level henchmen, but it is mostly an enjoyable experience never-the-less. And if you happen to have a thing for Rosario Dawson...well you'll just have to watch it. Trust me.
3.5/5
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Wes Anderson is a director with a style so very much his own it surprises me he convinced anyone to give him a shot at directing; fortunately he took his chance and each film he directs seems to be a bit more Anderson-y. Whether or not he has reached his apotheosis with GBH remains to be seen but it is clear he has found a new comic foil in Ralph Fiennes.
As with most of his films the plot is a little patchy and really takes second place to the design and performances but when both are as wonderful as here it matters little: Ralph Fiennes is fantastic as the precise Monsieur Gustave; he's clearly been wasted in all those dramas - comedy's his thing; and while the rest of the cast are offered little more to do than to support his comic turn (Saiorise Ronan is particularly wasted here), they do that admirably. Basically if you like Wes Anderson films you'll be fine, if not avoid...if you're not sure I'd watch Moonrise Kingdom first.
I do recommend seeing it in the cinema to benefit fully from the effect of changing aspect ratios though.
4/5
Wes Anderson is a director with a style so very much his own it surprises me he convinced anyone to give him a shot at directing; fortunately he took his chance and each film he directs seems to be a bit more Anderson-y. Whether or not he has reached his apotheosis with GBH remains to be seen but it is clear he has found a new comic foil in Ralph Fiennes.
As with most of his films the plot is a little patchy and really takes second place to the design and performances but when both are as wonderful as here it matters little: Ralph Fiennes is fantastic as the precise Monsieur Gustave; he's clearly been wasted in all those dramas - comedy's his thing; and while the rest of the cast are offered little more to do than to support his comic turn (Saiorise Ronan is particularly wasted here), they do that admirably. Basically if you like Wes Anderson films you'll be fine, if not avoid...if you're not sure I'd watch Moonrise Kingdom first.
I do recommend seeing it in the cinema to benefit fully from the effect of changing aspect ratios though.
4/5
Seconded, I really liked it.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
I'd read some rather luke-warm reviews before going in and so wasn't expecting all that much from the film, so I was pleasantly surprised to come out having enjoyed the experience. Thinking back however, I can't really remember anything about the story, or villains' characters, or the overall moral. Most of my enjoyment came from the chemistry between the leads; Andrew Garfield makes a much lighter, rangy, wise-cracking Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire (though Garfield is really far too cool to be Peter) and Emma Stone is wonderful and sparky as Gwen. In the end though the lack of story-telling focus lets the actors down; there is a feeling they're making up as they go along; with none of the careful planning that Marvel appears to be putting in I'm not sure the posited future outings for the Spider-universe will be much cop.
3/5
Also, check out Film Critic Hulk's demolishment of the film if you want to know, in detail, what the film's problems are. Beware of spoilers though.
I'd read some rather luke-warm reviews before going in and so wasn't expecting all that much from the film, so I was pleasantly surprised to come out having enjoyed the experience. Thinking back however, I can't really remember anything about the story, or villains' characters, or the overall moral. Most of my enjoyment came from the chemistry between the leads; Andrew Garfield makes a much lighter, rangy, wise-cracking Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire (though Garfield is really far too cool to be Peter) and Emma Stone is wonderful and sparky as Gwen. In the end though the lack of story-telling focus lets the actors down; there is a feeling they're making up as they go along; with none of the careful planning that Marvel appears to be putting in I'm not sure the posited future outings for the Spider-universe will be much cop.
3/5
Also, check out Film Critic Hulk's demolishment of the film if you want to know, in detail, what the film's problems are. Beware of spoilers though.
Only God Forgives
Nicholas Refyn must be a strange chap: After his stylish, brutal, Ryan Gosling-starring success with Drive he buggered off to Thailand to make this rather strangely quiet and thoughtful, yet pretty bloody follow-up. Starring Ryan Gosling.
It's beautifully shot; every frame is carefully composed, drenched in shades of neon and black, but if you're after action this is not the film for you: There is much staring at hands and slow, careful build-up that makes the 90 minute running time seem...generous. As a film it is more an assemblage of shots than a carefully plotted tale, but with a stunning, foul-mouthed performance from Kristen Scott-Thomas and some studied brooding from Gosling I think I rather enjoyed it. Probably could have done without 3 karaoke scenes though.
3/5
Nicholas Refyn must be a strange chap: After his stylish, brutal, Ryan Gosling-starring success with Drive he buggered off to Thailand to make this rather strangely quiet and thoughtful, yet pretty bloody follow-up. Starring Ryan Gosling.
It's beautifully shot; every frame is carefully composed, drenched in shades of neon and black, but if you're after action this is not the film for you: There is much staring at hands and slow, careful build-up that makes the 90 minute running time seem...generous. As a film it is more an assemblage of shots than a carefully plotted tale, but with a stunning, foul-mouthed performance from Kristen Scott-Thomas and some studied brooding from Gosling I think I rather enjoyed it. Probably could have done without 3 karaoke scenes though.
3/5
Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier
I really enjoyed this one; Chris Evans has settled into the role of the star-spangled Avenger and his interplay with Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow significantly elevates the second act. The air of conspiracy that pervades the film is a definite bonus and its really nice to see a villain who is a normal human. The final half hour does slide towards convention; a large action sequence involving things blowing up and people hitting each other isn't particularly original. Fortunately the repercussions of this particular sequence will be felt throughout the rest of the Marvel films (and TV series) giving it some of the required added drama. Still it falls short of The Avengers' careful interplay of character and action and so could be better.
3.8/5
On another note it has meant that Marvel's Agents of SHIELD has had to up its game, due to events in this film, prompting a significant improvement: roll on series 2.
Also a Peggy Carter TV series is in the pipeline - W00t!
I really enjoyed this one; Chris Evans has settled into the role of the star-spangled Avenger and his interplay with Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow significantly elevates the second act. The air of conspiracy that pervades the film is a definite bonus and its really nice to see a villain who is a normal human. The final half hour does slide towards convention; a large action sequence involving things blowing up and people hitting each other isn't particularly original. Fortunately the repercussions of this particular sequence will be felt throughout the rest of the Marvel films (and TV series) giving it some of the required added drama. Still it falls short of The Avengers' careful interplay of character and action and so could be better.
3.8/5
On another note it has meant that Marvel's Agents of SHIELD has had to up its game, due to events in this film, prompting a significant improvement: roll on series 2.
Also a Peggy Carter TV series is in the pipeline - W00t!
Interstallar
Another great film from Nolan that it is probably best to sit back and enjoy in the cinema and not worry too much about the final narrative shenanigans. It's hugely ambitious, well shot and fantastically acted (Mackenzie Foy as McConaughey's daughter is particularly good). Its themes of the perseverance of the human spirit and the importance of love (particularly between father and daughter) are well-worn and slightly unexpected respectively but both welcome.
In the end it sort of loses its way in an attempt to wrap up the story satisfactorily; I felt like the narrative was pretty tight up to a certain point (if you accept the premise of a secret space program in this agrarian future) and then it went in search of an ending it didn't really have a right to. However, I really enjoyed it while it was happening and don't begrudge it its failings. It didn't outstay its welcome, despite the 2hr 40 running time, but whether it will enter the pantheon of pure sci-fi greats (2001, Silent Runnings, Moon...Contact (I put that one in for Pete)) I can't yet tell. I'll have to watch it again and see if it drags on DVD without the impact of the big screen.
4/5
Another great film from Nolan that it is probably best to sit back and enjoy in the cinema and not worry too much about the final narrative shenanigans. It's hugely ambitious, well shot and fantastically acted (Mackenzie Foy as McConaughey's daughter is particularly good). Its themes of the perseverance of the human spirit and the importance of love (particularly between father and daughter) are well-worn and slightly unexpected respectively but both welcome.
In the end it sort of loses its way in an attempt to wrap up the story satisfactorily; I felt like the narrative was pretty tight up to a certain point (if you accept the premise of a secret space program in this agrarian future) and then it went in search of an ending it didn't really have a right to. However, I really enjoyed it while it was happening and don't begrudge it its failings. It didn't outstay its welcome, despite the 2hr 40 running time, but whether it will enter the pantheon of pure sci-fi greats (2001, Silent Runnings, Moon...Contact (I put that one in for Pete)) I can't yet tell. I'll have to watch it again and see if it drags on DVD without the impact of the big screen.
4/5
All you need is Kill aka 'Edge of Tomorrow' or possibly 'Live. Die. Repeat.' Confusingly.
This film appeared to suffer from confused marketing; selling it as a standard, Tom Cruise-starring, sci-fi actioner did it a serious disservice: It is in fact a time-bending, darkly funny, sci-fi action comedy in which Tom Cruise gets brutally killed numerous times. What's not to like? It also has Emily Blunt...come on!
The plot concerns an alien invasion of earth that is being fought with a massive invasion of occupied Normandy by an army of exo-suited grunts. Tom Cruise's cowardly propaganda officer, Major Cage, finds himself on the frontline, despite his best efforts, promptly dying and waking up again the day before. Cue a video game-like progression towards heroism as Cage is trained by Emily Blunt's 'Full Metal Bitch' Rita Vatrisarky to possible redemption for the human race. As with most time travel plots the logic is a little dodgy but we're not here for rigor; we're here for fun. And fun it is to see Blunt callously shoot Cruise just because he has a broken leg and they need to 'reset'. There are some great set pieces - in particular the opening shot of a helicopter landing in an abandoned Trafalgar Square - and the fact that all the stunts are done in-camera with all the actors wearing impressive-looking exo-suits adds a much needed verisimilitude that many modern films lack.
It's well worth a look on blu-ray - and look out for the military badges expertly sewn as they are...
4/5
This film appeared to suffer from confused marketing; selling it as a standard, Tom Cruise-starring, sci-fi actioner did it a serious disservice: It is in fact a time-bending, darkly funny, sci-fi action comedy in which Tom Cruise gets brutally killed numerous times. What's not to like? It also has Emily Blunt...come on!
The plot concerns an alien invasion of earth that is being fought with a massive invasion of occupied Normandy by an army of exo-suited grunts. Tom Cruise's cowardly propaganda officer, Major Cage, finds himself on the frontline, despite his best efforts, promptly dying and waking up again the day before. Cue a video game-like progression towards heroism as Cage is trained by Emily Blunt's 'Full Metal Bitch' Rita Vatrisarky to possible redemption for the human race. As with most time travel plots the logic is a little dodgy but we're not here for rigor; we're here for fun. And fun it is to see Blunt callously shoot Cruise just because he has a broken leg and they need to 'reset'. There are some great set pieces - in particular the opening shot of a helicopter landing in an abandoned Trafalgar Square - and the fact that all the stunts are done in-camera with all the actors wearing impressive-looking exo-suits adds a much needed verisimilitude that many modern films lack.
It's well worth a look on blu-ray - and look out for the military badges expertly sewn as they are...
4/5
The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies
The epic conclusion to the trilogy involving a battle and 5 armies.
I really can't remember much about this other than a crushing sense of ennui. It was fine; professionally shot, well acted and all the rest but just so much filling that left Bilbo (the title character lest we forget) twiddling his thumbs. The much vaunted battle is not a patch on Helm's Deep and I found it hard to care when certain unfortunate events unfold. The whole necromancer sub-plot is also barely worth the effort.
Not bad, just disappointing.
3/5
The epic conclusion to the trilogy involving a battle and 5 armies.
I really can't remember much about this other than a crushing sense of ennui. It was fine; professionally shot, well acted and all the rest but just so much filling that left Bilbo (the title character lest we forget) twiddling his thumbs. The much vaunted battle is not a patch on Helm's Deep and I found it hard to care when certain unfortunate events unfold. The whole necromancer sub-plot is also barely worth the effort.
Not bad, just disappointing.
3/5
King, as you seem to be half way there already, could you try rewriting your last review in the style of 'damning with faint praise' - an accusation oft leveled at/by a certain good Doctor.
Huh, I thought this one was the best of the three by far. The elf/dwarf love story is the only emotionally engaging element of the whole trilogy and really took off here. It was also mercifully lacking any of the Rube-Goldberg machine style action sequences that marred the first two movies.
It may well be the best of the trilogy but probably the one I enjoyed in the cinema the least: the rosy glow of excitement had faded by the time it came around...I'll make a final judgement when I watch the extended ed. Ultimately I think they should have stuck to two films...and perhaps PJ wasn't the right choice for director; I think it needed a new touch to make the exercise worthwhile.
BTW I could not take the romance in any way seriously; sure he's hot but she loves him? After a few smoldering glances and the gift of a stone? Please!
Hmm damning with faint praise...
TH: TBOTFA
Professionally shot, well acted with decent CG and some lovely scenery this film will while away 3 hours passably.
3/5
(How's that?)
BTW I could not take the romance in any way seriously; sure he's hot but she loves him? After a few smoldering glances and the gift of a stone? Please!
Hmm damning with faint praise...
TH: TBOTFA
Professionally shot, well acted with decent CG and some lovely scenery this film will while away 3 hours passably.
3/5
(How's that?)
QUOTE
After a few smoldering glances and the gift of a stone? Please!
That's exactly how I got Tizzy.
Paddington
After an earthquake destroys his home a rare Peruvian bear travels to London in order to find a new one.
I had absolutely no intention of seeing this after catching the trailer which made it look like a run-of-the-mill 'hilarious hi-jinks with cartoon bear' sort of slim. However all the reviews were absolutely glowing so I gave it a chance and I'm very happy I did. It is a warm and funny film with some great performances, a positive message and a winning central character tying it all together.
I'd really recommend seeing it (bearing in mind the PG rating if you take your kids - it's not overly naughty but Paddington does stuff you wouldn't want copied (like climbing bookshelves)).
4/5
After an earthquake destroys his home a rare Peruvian bear travels to London in order to find a new one.
I had absolutely no intention of seeing this after catching the trailer which made it look like a run-of-the-mill 'hilarious hi-jinks with cartoon bear' sort of slim. However all the reviews were absolutely glowing so I gave it a chance and I'm very happy I did. It is a warm and funny film with some great performances, a positive message and a winning central character tying it all together.
I'd really recommend seeing it (bearing in mind the PG rating if you take your kids - it's not overly naughty but Paddington does stuff you wouldn't want copied (like climbing bookshelves)).
4/5
The Raid 2
Starting a few hours after the end of The Raid this sequel really ups the ambition, scale and scope of Rama's travails: After his brother is killed, Rama agrees to go under cover in jail to get close to a gangster's son - cue bone breaking action.
The first film was a brutal, martial arts version of the same story told (coincidentally) in Dredd; group of cops in a criminal-infested tower block try to get to the top to take out the head bad guy. This follow-up is an altogether different proposition; while it maintains the main character and bruising fight scenes (still excellently shot and choreographed) it adds a much more complicated plot, many more characters and dialogue and an awesome car chase. It's not all to the good; in order to add all this the running time has stretched to roughly 2.5 hrs; the pace sometimes drags as men in suits talk to each other angrily and Rama is side-lined; at one point a new character is added (played by Yayan Ruhian who also played Mad Dog in The Raid) and it's tough to know why we should care about him through his (admittedly great) fight scenes.
However, when it's good it's really bloody good: whether it's in a fantastically muddy fight in jail, a brutal corridor battle with two Tarantino-esque assassins (Hammer Girl and Baseball Bat Man...really), a car chase that involves one of the best, low-budget, practical camera moves around (featuring a cameraman disguised as the passenger seat), or a no-cut fight in a kitchen. In addition to all the action the plot does actually work - it's a testament to the talent and ambition of the director Gareth Evans that he didn't just go for more of the same minimal plot and dialogue fight movie.
4.2/5
Starting a few hours after the end of The Raid this sequel really ups the ambition, scale and scope of Rama's travails: After his brother is killed, Rama agrees to go under cover in jail to get close to a gangster's son - cue bone breaking action.
The first film was a brutal, martial arts version of the same story told (coincidentally) in Dredd; group of cops in a criminal-infested tower block try to get to the top to take out the head bad guy. This follow-up is an altogether different proposition; while it maintains the main character and bruising fight scenes (still excellently shot and choreographed) it adds a much more complicated plot, many more characters and dialogue and an awesome car chase. It's not all to the good; in order to add all this the running time has stretched to roughly 2.5 hrs; the pace sometimes drags as men in suits talk to each other angrily and Rama is side-lined; at one point a new character is added (played by Yayan Ruhian who also played Mad Dog in The Raid) and it's tough to know why we should care about him through his (admittedly great) fight scenes.
However, when it's good it's really bloody good: whether it's in a fantastically muddy fight in jail, a brutal corridor battle with two Tarantino-esque assassins (Hammer Girl and Baseball Bat Man...really), a car chase that involves one of the best, low-budget, practical camera moves around (featuring a cameraman disguised as the passenger seat), or a no-cut fight in a kitchen. In addition to all the action the plot does actually work - it's a testament to the talent and ambition of the director Gareth Evans that he didn't just go for more of the same minimal plot and dialogue fight movie.
4.2/5
Avengers: Age of Ultron
After finally tracking down the Sceptre of Loki with the rest of the team Tony Stark uses his time with it to attempt to make an AI security force, named Ultron, to protect Earth. It doesn't go well.
It almost goes without saying that this is a great film; enjoyable, with great action pieces that somehow manage to balance whizz-bang action with character beats, it's a huge testament to Joss Whedon's skill as a director of multiple-character action. He's even found a way to make Hawkeye, a guy who is basically a normal guy with a bow and arrow, important (essential in fact) to the team. If Thor and Cap have a little less to do than previously it doesn't detract massively from the whole.
However, this film doesn't quite fizz with the same effervescent enjoyment as the first Avengers (or Guardians of the Galaxy for that matter): it's necessarily 'darker' as it is tasked with setting up future films in the MCU with varying degrees of success: While Cap and Stark's disagreements feel a natural part of the story, the whole Thanos/Infinity War stuff shows less subtlety. In addition Marvel still haven't escaped their endings problem; once again something very big threatens many civilians very slowly as the heroes rush around simultaneously fighting many faceless enemies and trying to stop the overall menace...yawn.
This is picking holes however; like Pixar Marvel have been consistent enough in quality that they have set a high bar for themselves. So far they've not faltered - but I worry for an Avengers film without Joss Whedon.
4/5
After finally tracking down the Sceptre of Loki with the rest of the team Tony Stark uses his time with it to attempt to make an AI security force, named Ultron, to protect Earth. It doesn't go well.
It almost goes without saying that this is a great film; enjoyable, with great action pieces that somehow manage to balance whizz-bang action with character beats, it's a huge testament to Joss Whedon's skill as a director of multiple-character action. He's even found a way to make Hawkeye, a guy who is basically a normal guy with a bow and arrow, important (essential in fact) to the team. If Thor and Cap have a little less to do than previously it doesn't detract massively from the whole.
However, this film doesn't quite fizz with the same effervescent enjoyment as the first Avengers (or Guardians of the Galaxy for that matter): it's necessarily 'darker' as it is tasked with setting up future films in the MCU with varying degrees of success: While Cap and Stark's disagreements feel a natural part of the story, the whole Thanos/Infinity War stuff shows less subtlety. In addition Marvel still haven't escaped their endings problem; once again something very big threatens many civilians very slowly as the heroes rush around simultaneously fighting many faceless enemies and trying to stop the overall menace...yawn.
This is picking holes however; like Pixar Marvel have been consistent enough in quality that they have set a high bar for themselves. So far they've not faltered - but I worry for an Avengers film without Joss Whedon.
4/5
Mad Max Fury Road
Wow! What the blazes just happened? This film is utterly batshit insane, crazy, chicken oriental and I loved it. Two hours of mental car chase through the desert, filled with the most amazing practical stunts and a guy bungeed to the front of a truck made of amps, playing a guitar that's also a flame-thrower.
It's what an action spectacular should be.
Go and see it I implore you.
4.8/5
Wow! What the blazes just happened? This film is utterly batshit insane, crazy, chicken oriental and I loved it. Two hours of mental car chase through the desert, filled with the most amazing practical stunts and a guy bungeed to the front of a truck made of amps, playing a guitar that's also a flame-thrower.
It's what an action spectacular should be.
Go and see it I implore you.
4.8/5
Mad Max: Fury Road
Extraordinary stuff from the visionary director of Babe 2: Pig in the City.
Seriously though, the action scenes are like nothing I've ever seen. I recommend IMAX 3D viewing (At some point I will write a bit about how 3D at the IMAX is worth it but 3D anywhere else isn't).
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Not as good as the first one, but enjoyable. Joss Whedon's skills lie more in writing multi-character action than in directing it I reckon. He still doesn't have a visual style, meaning that the action here is generic and not that memorable. (The first one at least had the "I'm always angry" moment, followed by the Michael Bay-style revolving hero shot).
Unlike Kingol, I have no problem with a Whedon-less Avengers film as I thought Captain America: The Winter Soldier was much more fun than this. Whedon himself appears to have not really enjoyed making this film and I think that has crept into the finished product a bit.
Jurassic World
I suspect most people will enjoy this. Chris Pratt is great. The dinosaurs are great. Bryce Dallas Howard is less rubbish than usual.
Extraordinary stuff from the visionary director of Babe 2: Pig in the City.
Seriously though, the action scenes are like nothing I've ever seen. I recommend IMAX 3D viewing (At some point I will write a bit about how 3D at the IMAX is worth it but 3D anywhere else isn't).
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Not as good as the first one, but enjoyable. Joss Whedon's skills lie more in writing multi-character action than in directing it I reckon. He still doesn't have a visual style, meaning that the action here is generic and not that memorable. (The first one at least had the "I'm always angry" moment, followed by the Michael Bay-style revolving hero shot).
Unlike Kingol, I have no problem with a Whedon-less Avengers film as I thought Captain America: The Winter Soldier was much more fun than this. Whedon himself appears to have not really enjoyed making this film and I think that has crept into the finished product a bit.
Jurassic World
I suspect most people will enjoy this. Chris Pratt is great. The dinosaurs are great. Bryce Dallas Howard is less rubbish than usual.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.