illbebackreviews Reviews

Modern Times (1936)

The work of a true genius!

[9/10 · 25 September 2013]

Chaplin's "City Lights" was my first exposure to silent films and to Chaplin's films. It was one of the best films I'd seen and I was eager to watch more of his films.

"Modern Times" is hilarious, entertaining, inventive, exciting and heartwarming. Telling the story of The Tramp as he struggles with the change with modern society, he meets a young girl whose father was killed and whose sisters were taken from her, Chaplin forms a bond with her and does everything in his power to assist her.

Perfectly directed with stunning cinematography and iconic shots (none more so than Chaplin in the interior of the machinery as he goes through the assembly line), Chaplin masters everything once more. The score is beautiful, his direction is perfect, his performance as perfect if not better and with a strong supporting performance, Chaplin's "Modern Times" masterfully conveys the struggle of poverty better than most "talkie" films ever could.

Brilliantly paced for a film with no dialogue, "Modern Times" is a hilarious film that is satisfying in every possible way.

Secret Agent (1936)

Underwhelming, slow and long...

[5/10 · 25 September 2013]

"Secret Agent" tells the story of a two secret agents who pose as a couple as they attempt to capture and kill a German agent, "Secret Agent" was possibly an original Hitchcock story and one of the earlier spy films. However, an interesting premise, two great lead performances by Carrol and Gielgud is botched by poor storytelling, an overlong duration and the highly irritating character that Peter Lorre portrays.

Lacking suspense and all the elements that make Hitchcock a master director and my all time favourite director, the only redeeming qualities found in this bloated Hitchcock picture are the attempted story its telling, an interesting romance story developing between the two leads and the two lead characters themselves.

"Secret Agent" is the biggest step down from "The 39 Steps" that Hitchcock could seek. If his intentions were to make a film that is in every right, worse than its predecessor, he has succeeded otherwise its simply not something he'd want to remember.

Young and Innocent (1937)

Underrated, overlooked, exciting British Hitchcock movie!

[9/10 · 25 September 2013]

Following the classic Hitchcock themes that he was well known for in "The 39 Steps" and his later works, "Young and Innocent" is a well made movie with strong tension, great characters, exciting premise built up terrifically within the opening minutes and is an exciting adventure of a wrongly accused man attempting to his clear his name from wrongdoings.

Nova Pilbeam and Derrick De Marney are absolutely terrific in the lead roles, having great chemistry back and forth, a romance story that is both interesting and necessary and a script that easily allows them to convey their thoughts.

It is said that this is indeed Hitchcock's favourite British film and whilst this is a little far stretched, it is to me, one of his most exciting and overlooked films.

Death Proof (2007)

How does the director of 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Reservoir Dogs' end up making this?

[4/10 · 8 July 2013]

******SPOILERS IN THE REVIEW***** Quentin Tarantino is my all-time favourite film-maker for his brilliant dialogue, his creative stories and his fantastic casting choices which all fuse together to often create a cinematic masterpiece. "Pulp Fiction", "Reservoir Dogs" and "Django Unchained" hold a spot in my personal top 20 for its incredibly entertaining dialogue, often humorous violence, endearing characters and the brilliant pacing. Going into Death Proof, I knew that this would be my least favourite Tarantino film but what I didn't know was that nothing I loved about Tarantino would be in this film.

The film focuses around a stuntman who has a "death proof" car that he uses for stunts in films. Going by the name of Stuntman Mike, he comes to the position in which he decides to use this car to chase after drunk and idiotic women and kill them.

One of the biggest mistakes made by Tarantino is the idea to kill our supposed protagonists an hour into the film. Unlike in Psycho (1960), in which the second hour picks up from the events of the first, here the story is in almost no way affected by what has happened and we as an audience are forced to take it in. What should've happened was having Zoe Bell and her friends being killed off early in the film and then established our main characters (who we saw in the opening hour of the film)

The first hour builds up using various dialogue sequences that unfortunately cannot capture the magic of previous Tarantino scripts. A sequence ensues with our supposed main character and her friends talking to Stuntman Mike but a few minutes later, they are dispatched. This half of the film should've come second, especially seeing how the events of the second half are hardly focused on. Stuntman Mike pops up and chases after another bunch of girls who eventually take him down. The film should've had these group of girls being taken out fairly early in the film, especially seeing how there were roles by Zoe Bell and a few others. This should've been a cameo role in which she and her friends are taken out by Stuntman Mike, who then proceeds to kill another group of girls after meeting them at a restaurant. This would've created a bit more tension seeing how our main character does have any sort of connection to Stuntman Mike.

Tarantino's strength has always been his dialogue which is always entertaining. He has created some of my all-time favourite dialogue but here, none of his dialogue is slightly entertaining. In previous films, we are able to follow his dialogue such as when Jules and Vincent are talking about "royale with cheese" but here, we are forced to painfully swallow 90 minutes of girls gossiping about sex and boyfriends which is neither humorous nor clever. The group of girls come off as nothing but gossip girls and in that way, doesn't resemble Tarantino's earlier brilliance. The performances itself were very disappointing, especially seeing how Tarantino is able to get the best performances out of his cast such as with Samuel L Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman and Christoph Waltz. In fact, the only worthwhile performance is Kurt Russel as Stuntman Mike but the supporting performances are weak.

The only positive aspect I could say about the film is the absurd car chase sequences which definitely boost up the overall score of the film. They are long, somewhat funny and surprisingly entertaining. Though some of the most illogical decisions are made, which furiates me, the chase sequences itself were more entertaining than every other aspect of the film combined. The first entertaining scene was about 45 minutes into the film where this girl gets a ride from Mike, who brutally dispatches her. This scene brought the first energetic smile out of me for the whole film. That brought back what Catwoman said in The Dark Knight Rises. "My mother warned me about getting into cars with strange men!"

As I said something about a possible alteration to the flow of the story earlier, this immediately sums up Tarantino's incredibly poor directing which is simply lazy. When creating Pulp Fiction, Tarantino would've spent much time actively putting together the various story lines so that they indeed combine, to form the one story. In Reservoir Dogs, he actively sought out material to shoot before and after the heist but here, he throws content onto the screen without thinking about it, resulting in a failed product that is Death Proof. Overall, the biggest disappointment of the decade next to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal!

Take Shelter (2011)

The first film of 2011 that I was fully invested in!

[10/10 · 29 June 2013]

For quite some time, I wanted to make a start to Michael Shannon's filmography and I heard that starting with Take Shelter is the perfect entrance and exposure to his acting. Now, I am truly convinced he is one of the great actors working today.

Michael Shannon plays a father and worker named Curtis who is constantly disturbed by apocalyptic visions of thunder and a tornado. Believing his family to be in danger from either the tornado and thunder or from himself, he attempts to create a shelter for his family as everyone around him believes him to be a madman.

The story is simple yet very effective around the fantastic characters created in this film. Director Jeff Nichols allows the story to meet the characters rather than the other way, creating some sympathetic characters especially Shannon's Curtis is brilliant portrayed as a desperate and deeply troubled man. Shannon gives perhaps the most intense performance of the year without ever going over the top and without ever acting out of character. In fact, apart from one scene which Shannon shines more so than in the rest of the film, he is incredibly quiet, giving a very realistic and convincing performance. Subtlety is the key with Shannon.

The supporting cast all do a fine job and Jessica Chastain gives a very strong performance as Curtis' wife, Samantha. Their relationship is greatly explored in the film, providing much of the heart of the film. I expected to be intrigued by the story but never did I expect to be emotionally invested in any of the characters. I was so invested that by the end of the film, I was in complete shock and awe as to what has happened and what I have witnessed.

The directing in the film by Jeff Nichols is absolutely wonderful, keeping an engaging and simplistic premise active for an entire 2 hours without ever having to resort to violence or any of the modern Hollywood scams. Intensity, mystery, emotion and danger are all powerful presences in the film thanks widely to a great script, fantastic directing and an amazing performance by Michael Shannon. The dream sequences presented in the film, where Curtis receives apocalyptic visions take it to another level of intensity and danger, as we feel more and more pity for Curtis.

Man of Steel (2013)

Mostly a welcome reboot, far from perfect but far from bad.

[7/10 · 29 June 2013]

Man of Steel was a movie that I hyped more than anything else in my life. I was one of the hundreds of thousands of people who believed this to be the Dark Knight for Superman films. The trailers hinted such depth and exploration into the fascinating character of Kal-El and we were exposed to some of Synder's killer action sequences. The music was something I was worried and the more I was exposed to Zack Snyder's films- "300", "Watchmen", "Legend of the Guardians" and "Dawn of the Dead", the more I was worried about the quality of the film. However, Nolan's touch in the film kept my hopes high.

As everyone knows, 'Man of Steel' tells us the story of Kal-El, the last son of Krypton, and his coming to Earth and him becoming a godlike protector for humans. General Zod and his men, the few other Kryptonians to have escaped, are in search for Kal-El as they attempt to retrieve something that was taken from them. Something which would lead Earth to a terrible fate and something which would lead Krypton to a glorious fate.

The first hour of this film is pure brilliance, even if flawed. Some questions are still left unanswered such as why the council sentenced Zod and his men to the Phantom Zone if they were in anyway aware of their ability to escape following the destruction of Krypton. However, the first hour generally displays Nolan's touch into the film, providing some emotionally powerful sequences of Kal-El being an outcast, throughout his early days of high school to his adulthood. Generally kept very quiet, this hour truly helped us get a better understanding of the character especially as he wanders off into the North Arctic, where he confronts a spiritual creation of his biological father, Jor-El, played by Russel Crowe. Here, he becomes Superman and here he comes to learn of his whereabouts and the reasons behind being sent here.

Thankfully, we are emotionally invested in various characters. Others such as Perry White and Lois Lane are also presented nicely, though we yet to know much about them asides from Lois attempting to track down Kal-El. The point is, this hour is quiet, emotional and a very realistic take on Kal-El, unlike previous Superman films.

The next hour is generally, action packed. This is where much of the critics have argued about the film, stating that there is simply too much action sequences to comprehend. Whilst it is action packed, it generally does have a story behind it except for one elongated sequence with Kal-El fighting part of the World Machine, unleashed by Zod, as he plans to terraform Earth into Krypton. This sequence proved tensionless, dull and an attempt to visually engage its audience.

The idea of Zod and his men terraforming Earth is an incredibly clever plot and the best thing here is, Zod's motivation. He is presented as a genetically bred and engineered man, assigned with the duty of keeping his people safe. Christopher Reeve as Superman was patriotic to America as Zod is to Krypton. His motivations are made clear, not by dialogue, but by facial expressions and actions committed. However, despite having a motivation behind him, he proves to be a rather underwhelming villain for the film, seeing as how he doesn't pose much of a threat but rather, his right hand man, Faora does. She was more intimidating than Zod simply was and Antje Traue portrayed her perfectly.

Most of the performances in the film are great. Crowe, Costner, Cavill and Fishburne are fantastic in their roles. Costner and Crowe give such great advice throughout the course of the film and are portrayed as such loving parents as is Diane Lane, who portrays Martha Kent. This was one of the film's strongest aspects and that is the loving relationship between a mother and a son. When Zod finally threatens her in search for the Codex (which would revive Krypton), it was such a delight to see Superman attack Zod in anger. The scene featuring a young Kal-El unable to control his overwhelming power is now related here as Zod is temporarily weakened by his inability to control his senses. This is the brilliance of telling the flashbacks in a non-linear structure as they each provide emotionally impact to what is happening to Kal-El in the present day.

However, there were a few performances that could have been better, most notably Michael Shannon (who was surprisingly underwhelming) and Amy Adams, who despite doing a decent job, often shows no chemistry around Cavill. It was revealed in an interview that she hardly acted with Cavill, and green screen was instead used.

The first hour was perfectly paced, keeping things nice and quiet as well as relatively slow. However, the last hour feels a bit too rushed in the process of creating larger than life action sequences, which was a delight to finally see in a Superman film. The final confrontation between Zod and Kal-El was proving incredibly exciting but was over too quick in the most controversial way. I personally loved it.

John Williams' iconic Superman theme is one that I listen to everyday, regardless of where I am. I just love it so much. Whilst I do understand how such a theme would not fit in this universe created, I personally had a bit of trouble with Zimmer's score, which was somewhat distracting at times. It generally proved to overpower scenes, especially one where Kal-El is launched into Earth.

Whilst I had numerous issues with the film, there was so much to enjoy about the film and is a unique and exciting take on Superman that unfortunately does lose most of the charm of the previous. The action, visuals, storytelling and performances are generally fantastic making 'Man of Steel' an enjoyable summer blockbuster, even if its overall a disappointment.

Watchmen (2009)

Watchmen is yet another overrated 2009 film

[4/10 · 17 June 2013]

Watchmen joins Avatar and Up into a list of most overrated films of the year. Zack Synder provides what is considered a faithful adaptation of the comic, Watchmen in an extremely dark, gritty and surprisingly slow way.

Watchmen tells the story of a group of people who vowed to protect their city as Roscharch (Jackie Earl Haley) goes on an investigation following the death of one of the Watchmen.

I found a problem with Watchmen in its pacing which can simply be described as, inconsistent. At times, the film is intriguing yet at other times, it drags along providing nothing engaging. The story itself is overly dark and attempts to visually look impressive, like most Synder films do. The script is rather well written, has some impressive dialogue but the overall execution of the story is where this film ultimately fails for me.

A film with a 3 hour duration needs many things to keep audiences engaged: great characters, a fascinating story all throughout and a well paced story. The characters in this film certainly have plenty of depth in them...but perhaps a bit too much making them rather difficult to follow a first time. The story itself is at times, overly complicated and at other times, presented as a straightforward story. Whilst great to see that Synder can add depth into a film, it is also difficult to take in as much depth as he provides. The story, at times dull and at times intriguing comes off inconsistent, poorly directed and poorly written.

The performances however are great and realistic, providing some good things for the film. That said, the film as a whole simply didn't connect with me. That said, it is most likely to connect to comic book fans as it provides some great action sequences and a deep story, telling us that it is a well adapted film

Iron Man Three (2013)

If there is to really be an Avengers 2...well then, this is a bad start!

[5/10 · 17 June 2013]

I loved the first Avengers films and really enjoyed the first two Iron Man films, even if I have no nostalgic attachment to the character of Tony Stark. I had decided before the release of this film, to not watch any trailers and to have no idea of what movie to expect. Seeing as this review has come a little late, it will be SPOILER HEAVY! I was thoroughly disappointed by this film and would call it the worst of the trilogy...yes, worse than Iron Man 2.

SPOILER HEAVY: Since the events of 'The Avengers' and the alien attack of NY, Tony Stark has faced nightmares but only realizes that his nightmare is about to get worse as the Mandarin has shown his face and has begun to cause chaos. Tony Stark must find the Mandarin who turns out to simply be a drunk, idiotic actor playing out the bodyguard role.

The first hour had some laughs and had some good action and overall was heading off in a nice direction, even if the pacing was rather slow. The jokes came together nicely and I was expecting something nice and a great second half. However, the moment the plot twist happens I come to realize that there is no way that this film could pick itself up again. "Why do we fall?" "To show Iron Man 3 that we can pick ourselves up again" This plot twist is so absurd and such a slap in the face to Iron Man comic fans who have grown to love the villain, The Mandarin. Without being a fan of Iron Man, I myself found the entire second half of the film pretty bad.

The Mandarin's presence was definitely felt and I expected something that would end perfectly with some fun action, a sense of intensity and purpose but following the twist, the jokes went dry, the action sequences became rather engaging and Guy Pearce's villain was completely uninteresting and just not the same threat of the drunk actor.

This proves that Director Shane Black gave no consideration as to how his audiences may have felt, seeing as many were fans of Iron Man and the Mandarin. The overall direction that the film takes is poor. A great first half and a very poor second half.

Robert Downry Jr is fantastic as Tony Stark, and he will always be. Ben Kingsley was just brilliant as the drunk idiot and Guy Pearce did a great job, even if his character wasn't anything. Visually, this movie looks gorgeous and the attack on Stark's house and saving the passengers on the plane scenes were breathtaking however nothing else in the film comes off as memorable.

Iron Man 3 suffers from poor writing, poor execution and just a terrible plot twist that makes what could possibly have been one of the best 2013 films, one of the most disappointing. This plot twist made me appreciate the twist in The Dark Knight Rises all the more...something which I hated.

Commando (1985)

One of Arnold's better films but please....That doesn't mean it is one of the greatest films ever made!!!

[8/10 · 12 June 2013]

Reading the top reviews, I cannot quite understand what moron would honestly consider Commando to be the greatest film ever made. Well, one of these IMDb users is a complete moron to say that Commando is by far, the greatest film ever made. That being said, Commando is a movie that is Arnold back in his glory days and is simply, a ton of fun.

Commando tells the story of Arnold Schwarzenegger who plays a retired Black Ops soldier named John Matrix who goes on a killing spree in desperate search for his lost daughter, who was kidnapped by a group of terrorists as a means to get John Matrix. Matrix finds no way other than to kill everyone as a means to get his daughter back and begins to do just that!

The story is simple, effective and a ton of fun. However, the best parts of the story aren't the action but simply, the character moments especially those between Jenny and John. Whilst this is rather clichéd stuff, it surprisingly works well in this film with Arnold giving a good enough performance for us to buy him as a fatherly figure. His friendship and how it builds between Cindy, a flight attendant off work is also done rather well, giving us a somewhat realistic take early on. Her character proves rather likable, playing the typical damsel in distress more than Jenny!

The action sequences are extremely low budgeted and come off looking extremely cheap, especially a sequence involving an explosion in a town. The effects looked absolutely horrendous but at the same time, makes for part of the fun. Arnold and his classic delivery of some of the cheesiest lines ever was just plain awesome. "Can you do me a favor? Please don't disturb my friend. He's "dead" tired!" The writing was actually rather good, surely providing some of the cheesiest lines but at the same time, being aware of what kind a film this truly is. I really loved Commando for one reason...well two reasons! Arnold and the film's unapologetic message of ruthless badassery!

Commando is a film that is definitely worth a check but it most definitely isn't a film anywhere near the style and brilliance of some of his other films, especially Terminator and Terminator 2.

Avatar (2009)

Dazzling visuals + Poor story = Very mediocre film

[2/10 · 9 June 2013]

I may have been the only person up until now to never have seen Avatar, not because I haven't had time but simply because, I just didn't feel it was necessary. I had loved James Cameron's earlier films (Terminator, Aliens and T2) and whilst True Lies was a good fun film, it was overlong. The same can be said about Titanic and it was by this point that I came to realize that James Cameron was one of the most overrated directors in the business. I can now say that Avatar joins his list of overrated films giving us nothing but visuals to drool at.

A group of marines are sent down to a planet called Pandora in search for some precious material and paraplegic Jake Sully is one of them since he becomes a replacement for his dead brother. Here, Jake begins to bond with the native Na'vis as he learns about their lifestyle and falls in love with Neytiri whilst failing to obey orders given to him.

Here is a premise that has been done before but the issue to Avatar arises with James Cameron and his overuse of CGI to dazzle his audiences. Since 2009, it has become absurd to think how people have truly fallen in love with this film hailing it as one of the greatest ever! This has always annoyed me but having seen the movie, this is absurd. If the visual effects to Avatar weren't as dazzling and there was no 3D to marvel at, then you have a movie that is absolutely nothing special. Whilst I am not criticizing the visuals, the story is so poorly told and the characters are stereotypical, with none of the characters coming off as interesting in the slightest. Even Neytiri, who we as an audience should be able to connect to, comes off as rather irritating. Whilst Cameron's earlier films, mainly the first two Terminator films and Aliens were able to convey emotion effortlessly making it very subtle and natural, Avatar truly overdoes it making many of the sequences involving the natives mourning rather laughable.

Though audiences have drooled about the visuals and the 3D effects, I myself saw no true brilliance about each whether it was due to the fact that I knew the overuse of CGI or whether it was the fact that I was able to concentrate on the story and characters. The film itself is paced quite poorly and inconsistently. The first hour drags along as Jake attempts to get in with the natives and the last hour and a half suddenly becomes a much livelier and more action packed feast than it was before. The problem with this is that the first half of the film doesn't provide much about Jake Sully to truly care for him and too much is given about Neytiri and her people that it comes to the point where it becomes rather difficult to take in anymore. This is overkill! Even with the poor story and attempt to overly humanize the Na'vi by providing possibly too much story, the action sequences towards the end of this film are truly engaging even if the characters in them aren't. It is mindless eye candy thrown onto the screen simply because Cameron knew that there was no way that the film would be received the same without a huge 'Helm's Deep' of his own. Whilst 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' had an engaging story, relatable characters, great character development, great performances, strong writing and directing that eventually deserves to be payed off with a huge action feast, Avatar rarely accomplishes any of the following I listed and so the huge action feast at the end is Cameron's way of attempting to erase his audience's mind of all the poor things about this film.

I am rather surprised to say this but most of the performances in the film come off as extremely poor when compared to Cameron's other films such as Aliens which had some of his better performances by actors. Sam Worthington isn't anything special as Jake Sully. I am still unsure on who to blame for not being able to like Jake. Sigourney Weaver, surprisingly, gives an extremely poor performance when compared with her performances in the Alien franchise. Most of the performances were extremely weird making the characters they played hard for me to take in seriously.

Those who simply praise the brilliant visuals and simply forget about the poor story and poor character development are those who do not truly think about this film and give it a simple pass for its revolutionary visuals. I just ask of them to view the film had the visuals not being at the standard that they were. As a young George Lucas once said, "Visual effects are used to tell a story. Special effects without a story is a pretty boring thing!" We all know what became of this man later in his life but this is a principle that James Cameron himself followed, until Avatar came along.

Superman/Doomsday (2007 Video)

A good animated take on Superman once more, however still not continuing Donnor's reign

[8/10 · 7 June 2013]

My preparation for Man of Steel has been mostly torturing with me hating the last three Superman films with a passion. I wasn't sure whether or not this film is where I should go next but only decided to watch this simply because I enjoyed the 'The Dark Knight Returns' films from 2012 and this year. I can happily say that Superman vs Doomsday is a surprisingly entertaining film that shows us the characters of Kal-El, Lois Lane and Lex Luthor far better than they were shown in Superman Returns and in some ways, brings back old memories.

Superman/Doomsday tells the story of Superman, on a quest to bring peace to Metropolis, realizes that he has found a new enemy called Doomsday, a genetically engineered warrior. During a fight, Superman manages to defeat Doomsday but succumbs to his injuries. Following his death, whilst the residents of Metropolis mourn his death, Lex Luthor has begun an all new and terrifying plot against Metropolis.

Whilst the introduction involving the title was disappointing as it didn't contain the traditional John Williams score, I was surprised that the theme composed for this film was surprisingly good and showed an extremely emotional side to it. The film begins with a sequence where Lex Luthor talks about god and compares him to Superman and states that even God must die sometimes. I thought that this was a truly fantastic way and intriguing way to open up the film. It immediately brought our attention on the story and made us loathe Lex a bit more than we had done in the past. It was a rather powerful beginning.

The story in this film is generally fantastic, giving us many great sequences and full of surprises. I had always viewed Lex Luthor as a rather bland character but here, he seems a little more energetic and seems clever. His plot in this film is an extremely unique one and though it may sound cheesy, comes off rather well in the film. Lex, after Superman's supposed death, creates clones of Superman as he makes his army of 'Supermen' to rule Metropolis. I thought that this was a completely awesome idea and worked a lot better than the plots to Superman III, IV and Superman Returns.

The action sequences in this film are generally exciting though some action sequences do go on for quite sometime, to the extent where you wonder how it could possibly stuff. The best action scene is quite possibly the scene involving Doomsday and Superman who fight, as Lois and Jimmy are on the plane. This scene had the most surprises and was rather short, quick and extremely effective. The most drawn out scene was the fight scene right at the end with clone Superman and Superman. The voice acting in the film was done extremely well. Adam Baldwin was fantastic as Superman and his voice for even Dark Superman was good. Anne Heche did a good job as Lois Lane, providing a much stronger and courageous Superman than Kate Bosworth's terrible performance the year earlier. James Marsters did a great job voicing Lex Luthor, giving a powerful voice.

However, this movie is far from perfect even though it is the best Superman film since Superman II, that I've seen. The vision of Metropolis didn't necessarily meet my expectations and I was disappointed. I'm not sure how loyal this film is to its comic book and I'm not sure how the Daily Planet looks in the comics, but here it seems too spacious and seems like an important place. I wasn't pleased by this aspect of the film but it makes up by several other great aspects such as voic acting, action scenes and some great character moments such as Superman explaining to Lois that he cannot give away his secret identity because of her own safety which links back to Superman II.

Though I was definitely pleased with the story and Lex's plot, I was truly disappointed at how quickly Doomsday was finished in this film. He made for a great villain and I thought that if he could've returned and still being Lex's puppet it would've been great, considering he is one of the toughest enemies Superman has faced thus far- Hopefully, Michael Shannon's Zod continues Terrence Stamp's Zod.

Overall, on my quest to experience different Superman films I was truly happy to stumble upon this one. It gives us a new take on the character of Superman and thus so, in a great and entertaining way. Even if a few action sequences go on a bit too long, an interesting story and some great characters make up for a great comic book film.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Even as an Indiana Jones, it is more than passable

[7/10 · 7 June 2013]

When a franchise has been dormant for a long period of time, especially a beloved one such as Star Wars or in this case, Indiana Jones, it is usually evident that a remake or a sequel usually results in an unnecessary addition to a franchise which ends up ruining it. This is evident with Star Wars and even Superman.

However, as bad as some films may be considered, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is considered the most disappointing film next to The Phantom Menace. I disagree.

Based around the crystal skull, this film tells the story of a much older Indiana Jones who is once more on a search for a crystal skull as he must ensure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands of the Nazis….oh wait, the Soviets. This is my biggest concern of the film right here, not the story in general but the idea of using Russians as the main villains.

Each previous Indiana Jones film had a memorable villain, with the first and third using Nazis and the second using terrifying Indian people. The villains in this film are so stereotypical and bland that they immediately pass off as forgettable. Whilst Harrison Ford is as brilliant in the role as he always is, bringing in the same endearing characteristics that made him one of the most loved heroes, Cate Blanchett is horribly miscast as the main villain. When you take into consideration how great an actor she is from various films, to the point where she has won an Oscar, you'd expect her to deliver a truly great performance in such a film. Absolutely not in this case. She comes off as an irritating and very unintimidating villain who comes off as a rather laughable person never providing tension when it is needed. This is partly due to some of the poor writing and some of the poor story involved with her character but Blanchett herself is at fault in this particularly case. When you realize every other villain has cast an image in this franchise and she doesn't, there is definitely something wrong One of my favourite scenes of the film is the fantastic sequence early in the film in the warehouse where a fantastic and old school looking action sequence takes place as John Williams' legendary musical score starts bombastically dancing to its own! This scene, despite the obvious CGI backgrounds, had a lot of great action and some great humor and was an overall fun sequence. Ford immediately ensured that we wouldn't view this film the same as the Star Wars prequels as he is able to bring in an endearing personality towards Indy once more. Then the film certainly slows down and whilst some hate Shia LaBeouf, I certainly didn't mind him. I thought it was rather clever having him be Indy's son which goes well with Sean Connery being the father. Both Indy and Henry Jones Sr are wreckless fathers who try to love their children but are too busy getting caught up in their own world and life.

The story itself is presented rather well even though it doesn't follow the same Indiana Jones structure. Most of the story is intriguing unlike the prequels to Star Wars and come off feeling like an adventure that Indy could go on some day. The script in this film is generally fantastic with some great moments and lines but at the same time, does have some bad dialogue. This is George Lucas' involvement.

Karen Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood from Raiders of the Lost Ark and whilst her character is present to bring back the feeling of the previous films, comes off rather irritating and doesn't do too much to help move the story. Whilst her character was great in the first film, this is where it should've left with her final known fate being having started a relationship with Indy as shown at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. When she meets Indy once more after a long time, it felt forced and rather awkward despite the two having been in a film of the same franchise, a further 25 years earlier.

Steven Spielberg is a legendary writer and whilst this is critically claimed as one of his least successful films, I personally found it a joy to view the first time. Surely it is full of flaws, more so than the previous films and doesn't contain the same magical and nostalgic factor, but Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is able to overlook these issues thanks to a fantastic performance by Harrison Ford and some great action sequences early on, as well as an overall good and engaging storyline with a relatively good script. However, it is truly evident that this instalment never needed to be there for this franchise.

Mean Streets (1973)

A good directorial debut, but maybe not exactly what I was after

[6/10 · 6 June 2013]

Director Martin Scorsese, a newcomer at the time of its release, must be credited for his direction taken with this crime film considering the year earlier brought to us the greatest crime film ever created, which is portrayed as a big and epic mafia film. However, Mean Streets is the complete opposite of Mean Streets. It has a low budget, has a small scoped story and takes crime films back a few years. Even with all the changes, Mean Streets is a rather enjoyable film by master filmmaker Martin Scorsese, who would later go on to make far greater films.

This is where Mean Streets is separated from other crime masterpieces such as The Godfather Parts I & II, Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas and even other crime films such as the absurd Scarface. The story is such a shorter part of the story that the essential focus isn't always around the story but more so the characters. Here is where I have one of my issues. Whilst the story is told early on about Johnny Boy (Robert de Niro) owing money to many people in the streets and how he is basically a con, the story come to a point in the middle of the film with Harvey Keitel's Charlie and Teresa, Johnny's cousin which is all about romance which completely threw me away from the story. Not that romance is a bad thing, in fact it works perfectly in The Godfather but here, it felt as if the entire focus suddenly shifted which made my attention shift. From here, the story becomes less relevant until towards which is a rather pity considering that by the end of the film, the story folds up beautifully. It is truly a pity that a little more focus wasn't spent on the basic story.

In one of his earliest films, Robert de Niro truly delivers a great performance as a semi psychotic teenaged man with a tendency to go off towards others and a tendency towards violence. De Niro completely embodies the character of Johnny Boy and is a rather pity that he didn't receive the role of Sonny in The Godfather in the previous year. The following year, De Niro keeps up his fantastic acting as Vito in The Godfather Part II and then as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. From Mean Streets, De Niro became an acting legend. Twenty years before Reservoir Dogs, Harvey Keitel starred in Scorsese's Mean Streets as an uncertain and much more friendly and thought provoking man by the name of Charlie, who throughout the film sticks up for Johnny and for others. Keitel too, delivers a fantastic performance. The rest of the cast all give good performances each being able to act to Scorsese's writing. De Niro shows strength, power, greed, violence and even corruption from an innocent boy to a thief. Keitel perfectly brings to the table what crime life can do to people and is used to separate others from him being able to illustrate what life is like for those who are involved in everyday crime.

By now, Martin Scorsese is a masterful director but back then, he wasn't a name. In Mean Streets, whilst definitely providing a good premise and some fantastic actors, as well as an engaging script (just like all his other films), Mean Streets is easily his weakest film I've seen (I have not seen Hugo and his more recent work) Whilst a very interesting first act, the second act of this film falls underwater with the third act having to rise from the water which it eventually does. However, when viewed as one piece, Mean Streets can be a little tiring, a little messy and a little tough to relate to, especially when a love story is rather suddenly introduced and is eventually one of the central focuses. Whilst a definite good film with great performances, Mean Streets didn't meet my expectations but is nevertheless, a film that I enjoyed even though it can be a little messy as one film.

On the Waterfront (1954)

One of the most powerful and most memorable films that is only helped more by Brando's brilliance

[9/10 · 3 June 2013]

In some ways, it is a shame to think exactly how long it took the legendary Marlon Brando before he won his first Oscar, but realizing that he won it in 'On The Waterfront' deeply warms and satisfies anyone's heart with his legendary performance being praised to death. The film itself, is one of incredible style, showing plenty of talent and skill and leaves an undying message that will live forever, much like this legendary picture has.

Marlon Brando stars as an ex-boxer named Terry Malloy, whose life has turned to misery and misfortune since been conned out of boxing. This is highlighted in his iconic line, "I coulda been a contender…" which has been parodied everywhere since then. It has become such a Hollywood classic that it cements a spot in the top 5 movie quotes of all time, according to the infamous AFI. Terry Malloy blindly takes part in the death of Joey Doyle and is willing to play D & D (deaf and dumb) for his boss, Johnny Friendly, portrayed by the legendary Lee J. Cobb. At this same time, a series of murders and crime ensues as Terry meets and begins a relationship with Joey's sister, Edie portrayed by Eva Saint Marie in her debut.

Every single performance in this film is incredible whether the obvious Marlon Brando, Lee J. Cobb, Karl Malden, Eva Saint Marie or even smaller roles such as Rod Steiger. Brando's performance is quite possibly, the greatest cinema has ever seen rivalled only by his performance 18 years later, in The Godfather. He brings a certain energetic feel to the film, boosting the brilliance of his performance by his speciality, method acting. Had anyone else been cast, no matter how legendary, I fear that they couldn't bring the certain endearing aspect that Brando does, the confusion, the anger, the disappointment and most importantly, portray the innocence of his character. Brando excels at each aspects of this film. He is not alone in terms of fantastic performances.

Lee J Cobb plays Terry's boss, Johnny Friendly and portrays him with brilliance. He brings yet again, a rather endearing personality to it and later unleashes with an intense, dirty and evil performance. The scene towards the end of the film, where he begins pounding Terry is vicious and completely believable not only from Brando's side but from Cobb's side. He certainly has a way with playing bad guys! Karl Malden is terrific as the priest in this film and it is his second film with Brando, the other being 'A Streetcar Named Desire' He is once more, fantastic as a supporting character knocking some sense into the kid inside Terry. The scene where he objects to Terry's desperate need for murder was just brilliant. Malden brings a certain frustration towards Brando's character, some heart and most importantly, is evident that he brings some sense into Terry.

Not only do we have the brilliance of Brando, Cobb and Malden but it is mindblowing to think that Eva Saint Marie won herself an Oscar in her film debut as she plays Terry's love interest, Edie. Whilst her performance may not be up to scrap with the others, it is nevertheless an absolutely fantastic performance especially considering it be her debut. The brilliant thing about 'On The Waterfront' is that it becomes so easy to get lost with the fact that there are actors acting out parts of this film due to how realistic and how grabbing the performances are.

The story is an extremely touching one, full of emotion and a realistic take on crime. The film itself is an extremely inspiring and positive one sending the undying message that even the average "bum" like Terry can do good like he does by the end of the film. It realistically presents what life can be like and the addition of the two kids who are often shown present with Terry are just brilliant, resembling the innocence of the kid within Terry.

At 100 minutes, the film is flawlessly written, directed and paced and keeps a certain intensity all throughout. The cinematography in this film is gorgeous and all themes tackled in this film provide us with hope in life, especially for those who are often discriminated due to various reasons. 'On the Waterfront' is simply a movie that can knock some sense and hope into anyone and it does after all, feature one of the all time greatest performances!

Superman Returns (2006)

At least by now, we can assure that Man of Steel will not be as terrible as this.

[3/10 · 28 May 2013]

Everyone hates the last two Superman films, there is not one person who views them as good films. However, prior to the release of Superman Returns, many would've been highly anticipated and hyped for this film, saying that how could Superman go wrong under the director of The Usual Suspects when he's got a massive $250 million to work with. Well, to keep this review short…everything went wrong with this film. Very little good aspects can be picked off this ridiculously long and slow running film which has little to offer in terms of character development and moments, exciting action, amazing visuals or even in terms of acting and writing.

'Superman Returns' tells us the story of Superman following the events of Superman II, where has returned to his home planet of Krypton in hopes of finding any survivors after an astronaut discovery of Krypton. He returns to Earth only to learn that the evil Lex Luthor has been released, following Superman's failure to show up in court. Now Lex Luthor is at it again, attempting to once more destroy the world as Superman must "return" to defeat him.

In terms of story, this is a straightforward premise and could easily be an engaging one. This was very similar in Superman: The Movie and the Lex Luthor storyline completely works there but here, it simply doesn't. Bryan Singer definitely did not demonstrate his love for film and his passion to resurrect a franchise that died out 19 years earlier. The way that the entire story was told was in a dull manner, never providing the true character moments that even the atrocity, Superman IV remembered and provided. Lex's plot to take over the world for a while seems interesting, especially a scene involving Jor-El. It was actually great to see them re-use Brando's legendary performance back in 1978 into this film and surprisingly worked, I must say. However, the whole aspect of Kal-El leaving Earth to Krypton betrayed his character and his constant frustration and jealousy throughout the film resembles more of the Clark from Smallville than previous Superman films!

Something that was horrendous about Superman IV was the laughable visual effects which looked like they had been horribly Photoshop-ed thanks to an extremely low budget of under $20 million. Thankfully, the effects in Superman Returns are good but still, in terms of its age don't look incredible. Much of the visuals do not seem engaging especially considering most other elements of the film are horrendous. Bland visuals generally don't mean much but here it does, considering that everything is pretty terrible, especially the characters. Something that was amazing about the first two instalments were the endearing characters and how they were played out. Kal-El was always charming and possessed all the traits that Superman should have whether it be witty humor, intensity, eagerness, boldness or even the clumsiness and awkwardness of Clark Kent which were all brilliantly portrayed by Christopher Reeve. The same cannot be said about Brandon Routh who simply doesn't bring much charm and excitement to the film despite some good Superman moments. When he delivers the line, "flying is still statistically speaking, the safest means of transport!" which was a complete take from Superman IV, not much is felt. He wasn't terrible but he definitely was miscast and definitely does not bring the memories of Reeves' Superman. Whilst Kevin Spacey is great as Lex Luthor, yet still remains a boring character, there was a huge issue I had with this film and that was Lois Lane who was such a lovable character in the old films. Kate Bosworth was rather terrible in this film for many reasons. She looked and certainly did not act anything like Lois Lane from the previous films but she looks far too young which becomes extremely distracting. However, the core of this issue lies with her acting abilities which are extremely limited. Considering a large proportion of the story is devoted to her story, it becomes rather hard to watch and care for her portrayal of a beloved character. Her chemistry with Brandon Routh was terrible with the two never demonstrating their charming and bold personalities that their previous actors displayed. Eva Saint Marie is great as Martha and it is a surprise that she and Brando were in a film together, despite not playing a couple or anything, since On The Waterfront in 1954.

There is one decent action sequence in the film and that is entirely it. To not spoil much of the ending, the film ends in the most anticlimactic and rushed way that it becomes utterly frustrating. To think that a new Superman film with the budget and even the time did not add as much action as even Superman III did is just shocking. It's actually an insult and would make this film feel worse and worse when re-watching. One decent action sequence doesn't give justice and respect to previous Superman films even if the source material was somewhat loyal to the original films. Since there is almost no action and no final confrontation between Kal-El and Lex, but ends abruptly, most of the emotion and conflict cannot truly be felt. Possibly one of the greatest scenes in the film is when Superman is hospitalized and people support him and wait eagerly, much like us the audience did. But…nothing really happens!

Overall, Superman Returns is quite possibly the fourth worst film in the Superman film franchise and suffers much from poor character development and lack of emotion and conflict. Many performances aren't that great and many characters and themes feel betrayed by this film. Even the effects do not look dazzling with such a big budget.

Superman III (1983)

Absolutely.....DIGUSTING.....how this film is considered remotely 'good"

[2/10 · 27 May 2013]

Whilst I was initially disappointed watching 'Superman: The Movie' mainly in terms of having Lex Luthor as a villain, I fell in love with 'Superman II' and I somewhat hoped that 'Superman III' could in some ways attempt to resemble and continue a film that had a great story and some brilliant characters. What I got was a complete cash grab, an unintelligently written sloppy mess that provides a terrible story, poor characters, no excitement and tension and relies far too heavily on goofiness in order to pass the time and attempt to match the brilliant comedy of the first two.

Superman III is based around a genius inventor named Gus who is recruited by his boss in many of his evil schemes including one of destroying Superman using Kryptonite whilst Clark Kent leaves for a high school reunion party where he meets a former friend, Lana Lang with whom he has an affair for.

Next to Marlon Brando, Christopher Reeve was always the second best actor of this franchise and once more, delivers a fantastic performance in this film, generally bringing the same wit and charm to his character. Further brilliant acting by Reeve is shown during Superman's time of being evil whilst under the influence of Kryptonite. His performance is so brilliant that it is the only thing that is truly fantastic about this film. The rest is all either mediocre or downright terrible

John Williams is my favourite composer of all time and Superman is my second favourite movie score of all time and so, his classic Superman theme is such a memorable one that I happen to love so much. The very start of Superman III was completely wrong and I knew I was in for something bad. The way the cheap looking titles crawl in did not resemble the brilliance of the original and the fact that it wasn't the classic theme playing was downright frustrating. However, when you do get to hear the classic theme play early on when Superman is trying to save the man drowning in his car (in the most ridiculous fashion), I was relieved but later disappointed considering most of the film has an uninteresting musical score that certainly doesn't make the Superman films seem that much better.

There were definitely some great Superman moments, particularly early on when he is saving the man from drowning and the short scene in the photograph booth. That was somewhat of a classic Superman moment but the best moment of the film is most definitely when Superman bad is defeated and the bombastic theme song starts playing. This is brilliant for many reasons and not just because of the music but because of the character of Superman and his determination and love for his country. However, when the film is viewed as a whole, the few great Superman moments really fade considering the film heavily relies on overly goofy scenes, especially with Richard Prior's Gus

Richard Prior's performance in this film is most definitely not a great one but more so, an annoying one. His character is particularly uninteresting and Richard Lester and crew thought it would be appropriate to shove as much lame and unoriginal comedy to his character as possible to the point that he could never be taken seriously, even when he is afraid that Superman may be killed due to his inventions. Not only is Prior's performance ineffective but the story given to Gus is completely ridiculous that it betrays the tone of the first two Superman films.

The worst thing about the film, believe it or not, is not the overuse of comedy which at times seems like a warm welcome when compared to the overall story told in this 2 hour waste of time. Much of the film deals with Gus going to Vulcan Weather Satellite and altering the weather, then building a computer to help rule everything and even steal cheques for himself. The story told in its entirety is more awful than in separate pieces and whilst the Superman story may seem great early on, by the end of the film it most definitely becomes laughable. The first two Superman films exceeded because they had great characters. Part of the reason of Superman III's failure is with all the new characters and how old characters are replaced with much worse characters. This is definitely true as Lana takes over Lois, who was a lovely woman to be around. Lex Luthor, Superman's nemesis is replaced by a man with absurd plans, Webbster. Superman III is full of clichéd new characters that add nothing good to the story.

Whilst Superman: The Movie is a classic and Superman II is a great sequel, Superman III is an utter failure in all aspects suffering from poor writing and directing, overuse of recycled jokes, characters that are NOT endearing, a story that is uninteresting. This brings the film down to a joke which is pretty much the tone of the film, throwing aside the cleverness of the first two and making it a complete comedy film instead of a Superman film. Whilst there were a few Superman like moments, this is soon forgotten under the horrible mess of everything else in this awful picture.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

A very bad film yet not as bad as the abomination that is, Superman III

[3/10 · 27 May 2013]

Superman III is not considered to be the worst of the Superman films but now that I've seen Superman III and the abomination that is Superman IV, I can happily say that Superman III is simply far worse than Superman IV which is by no means a good film apart from the fact that it has a few good factors to it such as the returning cast, the character of Superman and the Superman like moments and the overall short duration of the film that ensures us that this film isn't as horrid and stinky as Superman III

Superman agrees to stop the launch and use of nuclear weapons and begins to put an end to it but by a complete accident, he creates a man of nuclear referred to as NuclearMan whose one task is to kill Superman, under orders from a returned Lex Luthor.

Superman is an iconic movie character, respected and even worshipped by some and often labelled the greatest superhero ever made and one of the all time great movie characters. Thanks to Christopher Reeve and Richard Donner, Superman is a worshipped character from the magic of the first two Superman films which portrayed him as an honest, courageous, courteous, brave and determined fighter whereas Superman III didn't really take the character anywhere and explore his sudden evil side. Whilst potential, terrible overuse of slapstick humor and a horrendous story destroyed the film to a point beyond repair. Thankfully, Superman IV got two things perfectly right about the film and that is the character of Superman and how is loyalty to Metropolis as well as Reeves' portrayal who absolutely nails it once more! It was almost a joy to see everything about Superman recovering since Superman III and this is quite simply, the only good aspect of the film

I've never criticized special effects in films and normally, I don't intend to. When you consider how great the effects in the first three Superman films are and how Superman II had a budget of over 50 million and that the latest instalment, which was produced seven years later, has less than $25 million, it is so definitely clear that this film was not to ever be made considering the box office and critical failure of Superman III. The effects in this film look beyond horrendous, even unwatchable especially sequences involving Superman or Nuclearman flying through space or Metropolis. It looks like a terribly edited version on Photoshop where nothing looks realistic enough to take seriously. Sequences involving flying around in Metropolis, especially a scene that ruins Superman in two ways involving Superman taking Lois for yet another fly around Metropolis is not only hard to take seriously, it completely destroys the magical moment from the first film and makes Superman a rather hard character to understand. I guess it's time to get used to him in Superman Returns but thankfully, this is the only instance where Superman is portrayed as a douche. Having taken her for a tour, he gives her a mind erasing kiss (which still makes no sense) in order for her to forget that he is Superman. Simply, the special effects looked horrendous. Even Monty Python and the Holy Grail, being a 1975 picture, had better effects of God!

Whilst Christopher Reeve is outstanding as Superman and Gene Hackman is as usual, good as Lex Luthor, the rest of the cast simply aren't interesting even Marc Maclure as Lois Lane, who simply doesn't show the same enthusiasm and passion as she did in the first two. Clearly a bad sign! The acting comes off rather horrendous especially the voice of Nuclearman done by Hackman, who completely makes it truly ridiculous to take seriously. The new characters in this film aren't interesting. The entire story evolving around the Daily Planet is simply stupid and how the story unfolds there is completely ridiculous and to top it off, more and more annoying and one dimensional Superman characters are introduced. Even Lux Luthor himself is uninteresting throughout the film and Nuclearman is a complete waste of some potential.

The story, whilst having potential, simply doesn't turn out to be anything special or even remotely, interesting. Much of the film is simply boring and thankfully, clichéd slapstick is not thrown into the film to make it worse! It definitely has a Superman feel to it and in some ways, had some great sequences such as the scene involving Kal-El's Kryptonian ancestors where they warn him to stay away from human affairs. However, this scene is completely betrayed later in the film and much of the individual scenes taking place in the film are completely unnecessary and are rip offs from the first two films.

Overall, in some ways I cannot understand how loathed this film is yet Superman III is allowed a free pass. It just shocks me to see how this film is the most hated of them all but honestly, whilst a terrible film is made to be a great film when watching immediately after Superman III. A lack of stupid slapstick and a computer villain make this a better film than its predecessor but still not a good film by any means.

Snitch (I) (2013)

Warning: Most definitely not an action film and thank god it isn't!

[7/10 · 23 May 2013]

Dwayne Johnson, aka 'The Rock' is known as a big action star but prior to watching this film, I was afraid whether or not he could embody playing an extremely dramatic person and thankfully, he pulls it off quite nicely. Whilst not anything spectacular, Snitch does have an enjoyable and interesting story filled with good drama and Dwayne Johnson's best performance yet.

Dwayne Johnson plays a man named John Mathews whose son, Jason Collins, has been captured and arrested as part of a 10 year sentence due to storing drugs in his house which a friend, who as part of a bait to reduce his life sentence, had given him. John Mathews must now try to do everything that he can possibly do, without any use of action, to try and reduce his son's extremely long sentence due to him believing that he is a failing father.

Yet again, the story isn't anything incredibly special but it certainly does have some great elements, particularly the fantastic drama. This film is most definitely not an action movie, despite having bits of action but more so a drama film that definitely goes in depth with John as a character. It is not just a drama film done for the sake of it, but one could say that it was done with some passion and certainly for that, it pays off nicely. There were particularly heavy emotional scenes that were carried out very well and overall, the story had you feeling sorry for John Mathews.

The emotional core of the film is carried out by Dwayne Johnson who gives his best performance yet. His performance is simply like nothing you've seen before, not Toothfairy or G.I Joe! As a character, John Mathews was written well and didn't come off as an annoying and overly frustrated and impatient man but a relatable and endearing fatherly figure.

Whilst the movie was definitely enjoyable and providing a great story, there were many things that I didn't quite accept in the film considering its overall serious and emotional tone. The most important is the action sequences at the end of the film which were definitely not that interesting simply because it didn't fit with the context of the rest of the film and the tone it had set. Some of these action scenes are nice but simply, don't add much and just seem like a Hollywood attempt to make this film appeal to a wider audience.

John's son, whilst innocent, is quite a moron accepting to store drugs given to him by a friend. The fact that all this happens in the first scene of the film and that this idiotic decision is the cause of the film at times, upset me. It just felt like such an illogical move to make and was rather distracting. Had he chosen to not accept the drugs but was somehow delivered to him, I would've fully accepted it and his character would've been a little more endearing but this foolish decision at times, made me disengaged with his character and his relationship with John.

Whilst the story is always interesting and endearing, the film just feels a little too long especially by the half way mark where several scenes with Daniel James, a friend and co-worker of John's, are shown and giving much family backstory. Whilst all important to the story, this is truly where the film slows down for me and for a short period of time, I was disengaged from everything else that was happening.

Laying the criticism aside, I personally thought that 'Snitch' was a most interesting film that shows that Dwayne Johnson has more of an action ability than what has been shown by him in the past. It was an interesting and well- made film suffering from some unnecessary action scenes, being overlong and having some rather uninteresting characters.

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

To make a masterpiece 2 years after another masterpiece tells us that Leone was a masterful director!

[9/10 · 20 May 2013]

Before watching this film, I was concerned whether or not this film would please, despite the undying praise given to this film. This is not just because Leone made a masterpiece 2 years before but also due to the fact that he was set to retire from Spaghetti Westerns before reluctantly making this film. Now that I've seen it, Sergio Leone simply made the right choice in continuing with Spaghetti Western film making! The story revolves around a young woman named Jill McBain who was driven to a town where she finds her family slaughtered by a man named Frank. During this time, a mysterious man playing a harmonica is found as well as another man named Cheyeene who must join forces to save the girl's life from Frank's assassination attempts as a ploy to get the woman's land.

Much like 'The Good, the bad and the Ugly', this is an extremely moving and epic tale told in the grandest of fashions to the very best of one's ability. The characters in this film are truly memorable as is the brilliant musical score composed by Ennio Morricone who simply outdoes himself with these films. The performances throughout the film are brilliant and the fantastic cinematography, writing and directing are flawless! Whilst The Good the bad and the Ugly had three of the most memorable characters (Blondie, Angel Eyes and Tucco), so does this film in having Frank, Cheyeene and nicknamed "Harmonica" who closely resemble the characters from Leone's previous masterpiece. These characters are extremely intense, entertaining even hilarious at times and most definitely great examples of fantastic characters in films. Frank, played by Henry Fonda, plays the antagonist in the film who must try o either kill Jill and take the land for his boss or to convince her to give it up. He has an absolutely fantastic scene in the film where we are introduced to him just as he viciously kills a young boy. This scene alone simply strikes a threatening image in our mind as to who this guy is and what he is like. Cheyeene is the extremely likable guy who throughout the film can be both dangerous and helpful certainly for Jill. His character is an iconic Western image right up there with Eastwood's character from the Dollars trilogy. Harmonica is the best character in the film who throughout the film keeps a cool head and plays a harmonica. In one scene, in the dark, Jill hears him playing his harmonica and attempts to gun him down and she only realizes he fails when she hears the music once more! That was another memorable scene in the film Full of fantastic directorial moments and a great script, the performances in this film are rich especially by Henry Fonda who literally becomes another person for this film. As do Jason Robards in a brilliant performance as Cheyeene. Charles Bronson delivers yet another one of the most memorable performances as Harmonica. The rest of the supporting cast all do a great job making the performances in this film are outstanding

Ennio Morricone is a large reason as to why Sergio Leone's Westerns work to the extent they have. This musical score is the same in the fact that it is simply such an iconic piece of music that throughout the film perfectly resembles the tone of each scene.

Simply to say, Once Upon a Time in the West is an absolute masterpiece of a film that will remain one of Leone's best. I have no complaints with the movie that if I were to pick a bad part, I would only be able to say that it isn't quite as brilliant as 'The Good the bad and the Ugly'

It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

One of the best films ever made!!!

[8/10 · 18 May 2013]

Praised to death by movie buffs and critics alike, 'It's A Wonderful Life' is often considered to be one of the greatest films of all time and for certain, one of the greatest family films and Christmas films alike. As a person who is currently planning to view classic films, I realized that I had to check out 'It's A Wonderful Life' and did not regret it afterwards.

James Stewart stars as George Bailey and Donna Reed stars as his wife, Mary Hatch in this absolute family classic. The story is one of extreme depth and emotion as the film takes around three quarters of the duration before the actual plot begins, but never does the film truly bore you. Filled with amazing black and white cinematography, fantastic acting and often great humorous relief, 'It's A Wonderful Life' truly succeeds at creating such a universe and letting one immerse themselves in the story. To not care entirely for 'It's A Wonderful Life' would clearly show that one would not be human at all as this film deals with great emotion as George Bailey comes the lowest point in his life, full of struggle and frustration that he wishes he were dead so that he would not have to deal with this pain and so that his film would be happier. It is then, that George's guardian angel, Clarence, who had been paying attention to him since he were a child, arrives and gives a tour of what life would be for everyone had George not been born.

I had absolutely no idea how this film would turn out. I wasn't even sure whether this would be a film that I would enjoy very much but the film is structured fantastically and the writing and directing is amazing. The best element of the film is the attention to detail on George's character and how much backstory there is. Even the small things such as his father or his brother turn into something more important for George. The way the film depicts everything about George was fantastic. From the scene with him as a child, saving his brother, I was endeared by the character. Of course, a great character only works with fantastic acting and Jimmy Stewart delivers just this in the grandest of style! His ability to display emotion throughout the film is unbelievable, completely allowing anyone to buy the character and the performance. In fact, for much of the film, you forget that Stewart is actually acting in the film! Not only is the film amazing in terms of cinematography and depth of characters but the film offers such fantastic moments such as everything at the end of the film involving Clarence. The emotional aspect of the film is truly terrific with each scene carefully crafted, featuring just the perfect amount of emotion to it. Even the humor, which is plentiful in such a film, is done in a way that it does not overplay the humorous side of the film and unbalance the tone. These sequences are so immersive and the fact that this is a feel good Christmas film just truly ensures that this film delivers. The characters are truly unforgettable, the acting and story is amazing, written and directed intelligently,

'It's A Wonderful Life' truly exceeds at being a masterpiece in every way and it is indeed, no surprise that this film be ranked so highly on many of the top films list, most notably IMDb's infamous top 250, to which it holds a place at 29. 'It's A Wonderful Life' is truly an unforgettable classic that shall live for generations. Literally, the greatest Christmas film ever made. They don't get better than this.

City Lights (1931)

I was never aware that silent films could be masterpieces!

[9/10 · 18 May 2013]

I have never before seen a full silent movie and obviously, never seen a Chaplin film. I didn't know, going into the film, what to really expect. I didn't think I would be able to stand a whole film without any dialogue. I honestly didn't think that slapstick humor, to the extent that I've seen in a few clips from Chaplin films would appeal to me. Thankfully, I was more than wrong. Charlie Chaplin is not only a funny film, but it is an extremely touching film. The performances are fanastic, especially by legend Charlie Chaplin who was perfect as the often clumsy Tramp. The story was so moving that the 90 minute duration was forgotten by me right throughout the film.

The Tramp meets a blind flower girl and immediately falls in love with her. On eday, he rescues a millionaire as he was about to commit suicide and convinces him to not destroy his life. The drunk millionaire befriends The Tramp to the extent of allowing him to stay at the man's mansion, use his car and even borrow money. The Tramp, one day, spies on the blind girl's window and sees a doctor by the girl's bedside and realizes that she is sick. He also discovers that the girl and his grandmother may be forced to leave if they cannot pay their rent in time. 'City Lights' then follows The Tramp's hilarious adventure to try and get enough money to save the girl and her grandmother, whilst running into plenty of trouble.

Charlie Chaplin perfectly portrays the Tramp as an extremely peculiar looking and clumsy man yet also brings extreme heart and love to the role. His fantastic performance is matched by Virginia Cherrill who portrays the blind flower girl extremely well. Inarguably, both were fantastic but their brilliance is more evident due to the fact that 'City Lights' is a silent film that has no dialogue. The ability to portray an entire film simply out of facial expressions is absolutely fantastic.

My expectations for 'City Light' were to see a completely slap stick humored film. Whilst there is plenty of slapstick humor, the film is incredibly touching and powerful written and directed brilliantly by Sir Charles Chaplin. The humor is plenty throughout the 90 minute duration of the film and whilst the emotion is limited, when emotional scenes are shown in the film they work brilliantly. 'City Lights' is yet another one of those films that many people underestimate and jump to speculations which turn out wrong.

'City Lights' is such a brilliant film that is pretty much flawless, making for the most entertaining 90 minutes without any words uttered out of mouths! The brilliance of this film is more evident for myself, as I now wish to see more Chaplin classics! Featuring fantastic performances and a great story, City Lights is definitely one of the classics that every movie lover must view sometime in their life. It is the Star Wars of its era.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)

Disappointing compared to the first but still an entertaining film...IT'S NOT A MASTERPIECE!!!

[6/10 · 18 May 2013]

The first Rambo film is a cult classic and one of Stallone's best performances. When making a sequel to a great action film, these films suffer. Examples being Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Terminator 3 and 4 and several other beloved action flicks. Whilst certainly not horrible, Rambo II is not much similar to its predecessor but instead relies heavily on big action scenes. Great performances by Stallone and Richard Crenna, as well as some exciting action, even if it isn't at all like the original and a few character moments save this from being a total disaster of a film.

John Rambo was arrested at the end of the first film for the damages and deaths that he caused in a town. Whilst in jail, Rambo's commander arrives and apologizes to Rambo for the life he now lives and offers to send him back to Vietnam to search for some lost men and thus, give back Rambo his freedom. Reluctantly agreeing, Rambo travels back the world that he so dreads.

The acting is truly great by some and truly annoying by others. Stallone and Crenna are absolutely fantastic in their respective roles with Stallone once more giving such a physical and energetic performance. Every kick he acts or every fire from a gun shot feels as crazy and over the top as it should. Stallone even shares a few slightly emotional scenes which are handled well, despite much of the film being a mess. A character like Rambo could be a hard one to like but Stallone certainly brings a likability and pity towards his character. Crenna and Stallone share great chemistry for the few scenes they are in together and their friendship feels like one that two would experience during war time.

Something that makes this a near unrecognizable Rambo film is simultaneously one of the more enjoyable parts of the film and that is obviously the extremely over the top action sequences in the film. The original Rambo film was restricted in big action scenes but more so used the "predator" method. Rambo was a predator who sneaks up on his enemies to eliminate them, occasionally letting himself be spotted by enemies. This was a true magic of the first film but here, Rambo is constantly shown revealing himself to enemies and simply firing shot after shot. Even though he occasionally hides in the film, he is often seen by enemies and completely altering the tone of the film through this. This makes it feel less intense, despite some exciting action sequences. Whilst the original Rambo felt like a late 70s action flick, Rambo II certainly has the feel of an 80s action flick.

Whilst the action scenes are good and bad to the film, the film is truly redeemed enough by a few great character moments such as the final scene involving Trautment and Rambo. Here, Stallone gives a small speech that is well done and is an image that could be formed in one's mind. Other great character moments are involving Trautment, especially early on where he expresses his concern for Rambo. These moments, though not much, do help to save this film for the better.

'Rambo: The First Blood Part II' is definitely one of the most unrecognizable sequels to one of the cult classics. This sequel's immense difference is evident through big dumb action scenes that go on longer than expected, providing far less emotion and core to the story than the previous entry. New characters aren't as interesting as from the first and the story is largely one to not buy. Whilst Rambo II makes for a good action flick it doesn't necessarily make for a great Rambo film but isn't a completely horrid one due to some very great performances and a few great character moments.

Rambo III (1988)

The worst of the first three Rambo films.

[3/10 · 18 May 2013]

The first Rambo film is a true action classic and the second film is a true disappointment. Even though a disappointment, Rambo II wasn't a terrible film and it was a truly enjoyable film still giving us Rambo-like moments. However, Rambo III is what completely destroys everything about the series and we are treated with an extremely slow and overly emotionalized story that doesn't need to be. New characters aren't interesting and even the action sequences aren't that entertaining.

Sylvester Stallone is definitely a joy to watch in these films. His physical talent and his endurance and strength are so clearly evident when watching a Rambo film. Not only is he a physical guy but he is a truly underrated actor. He gives yet another great performance in the film but possibly, not as great as the first two. Reason being is that in this film Rambo seems to talk more often, especially delivering corny dialogue towards the end of the film with Richard Crenna's, Trautman. These two are the only good thing in the film but surprisingly enough, when you put them together in an action scene in this film, it turns out pretty bad.

Trautman returns to John Rambo with a mission to go to Afghanistan but John refuses and Trautman decides to continue with the mission as planned but Trautman is captured by Afghan terrorists as John must venture where he had no intention of going to save his only friend. When the word 'Rambo' pops into one's mind, they immediately think of a jungle and Rambo being in one. The reason that Rambo III should never be called a Rambo film is that, not once in the film are we shown a jungle. Instead, Rambo is shown in the open even more than he was in the previous film. The jungle is easily the best location that a Rambo film could have an action scene, and the fact that most occurs in sandy wastelands truly doesn't make it phenomenal. Most of the action scenes are uninteresting, the characters are annoying and forgettable and the story attempts to humanize itself too much by providing emotional sequences involving civilians explaining to Rambo about their life. Whilst this isn't terrible, it gets worse and worse as this is done again differently. The reason that 'First Blood' worked amazingly well is how little emotional scenes were shown yet how effective it was. Rambo III is the exact opposite of 'First Blood' and indicates that sticking to original source material works best, especially when trying to make sequels to action classics.

'Rambo III' is definitely the worst of the first three Rambo films, full of uninteresting characters and action sequences, not a single scene in a jungle making this a Rambo film an invalid statement and attempts to humanize itself too much making it that much more frustrating. Rambo III, most definitely isn't a great example of how to make an action sequel. Not only is it nothing like its original, but it is also a very slow paced film that had me checking my watch a few too many times, something which the previous two films didn't.

Star Trek (2009)

'The Matrix' of the 2000s- Simply mindblowing in every aspect.

[10/10 · 18 May 2013]

Reboots often do not work simply because no level of respect or homage is shown to some of the previous installments, but JJ Abrams made Star Trek in a way that every film with the original cast of the 80s and 90s were relevant and simply occurred during that time. Now, that is purely brilliant! By now, I've come to strongly dislike The New Generations films and have strongly disliked 2 of the old crew films. Star Trek is one that, not only do I enjoy, but I just love it so much. Currently, I am making a top 25 favorite films list and had I not being half done, Star Trek would make a place in my top 25! Spoilers throughout: Star Trek begins with a sequence regarding James T. Kirk's parents, who are aboard a spaceship called the Kelvin, which is suddenly under attack by Romulans following a lightning strike in space. George Kirk, father of James, is put as captain of the Kelvin and within the 12 minutes of captain, he saved the lives of 800 people by allowing them to escape whilst taking his life to defend them. In this ensuing chaos, James T. Kirk is born and his mother is able to escape. This was "the" perfect start to a Star Trek film, carefully and brilliantly telling us a little about how Kirk was born and what his father was like. This makes all the more sense and all the maturity into previous installments when we realize that Kirk is actually attempting to live up to his father's heroics. This sequence was the perfect way for JJ Abrams to have his audience completely engaged in the story by providing amazing visuals and action scenes and extremely well done storytelling.

'Star Trek' then tells the story about James T. Kirk who tries to live up to his father's legacies and become who his father would've wanted him to be whilst Vulcan Spock decides to not attend the Vulcan Science Academy, regardless of his extreme wisdom, but instead attend Starfleet as an officer. This was fantastic! The scenes with Vulcan early on were absolutely necessary and brilliantly done, paying complete respect to Spock from the earlier films and TV shows.

If this film has any issue for me, it is actually the villain who is definitely a tad weak and not extremely threatening. Thankfully, this is made up by fantastic writing and direction, mindblowing visual effects and action sequences and an extremely emotional storyline that dwells deep into the characters of Kirk and Spock. Whilst everyone liked Spock and Kirk from the old films, never was there any depth to the characters to this extent and so, when JJ Abrams decides to add extreme depth to his characters, it could either work or not. In this case, it worked and worked brilliantly.

Though for most of the time, I regretted watching every previous Star Trek film, by now I am completely pleased by this. Not only does it flesh out the characters more but it makes for a more mindblowing and entertaining experience. None of the other Star Trek films were this fast, this action packed or this mindblowing for its time period. However, the best thing about the film is the relationship between Spock and Kirk, who are portrayed absolutely brilliantly by much younger and much more active actors, Zachary Quint and Chris Pine. The way they become friends throughout the course of the film is done extremely well and in a realistic manner as is the rest of this film. More specifically, one of the best aspects of the film is how JJ Abrams had a character called 'Spock Prime' who is portrayed by Leonard Nimoy from the old Star Trek films. This character was extremely interesting and the way they incorporated him as a man from the future, which clearly tells us that the events in 'Wrath of Khan' take place due to the fact that Spock Prime recites the lines "I have and shall always be, your friend!" Lines that are direct references to Wrath of Khan, my second favorite Trek film, were a delight to be heard in this film! If any director needs to learn how to reboot a film, it is most definitely essential to get a tutoring class by JJ Abrams, who has successfully turned a slow and vastly inconsistent film franchise into an epic reboot that is much more lively, visually stunning and action packed. Every actor does play their part really well, even those such as Simon Pegg and Zoe Saldana. Star Trek is most definitely my favorite movie of the year and one of my top 5 favorite films of that decade.

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Interesting premise but poorly executed

[6/10 · 18 May 2013]

Whilst the previous installment nearly ensured that I would die halfway throughout the film, Star Trek: Nemesis for the most part keeps me rather engaged in the film even if there is almost nothing special about the film, except the fact that I do not need to suffer by watching another TNG film.

Tom Hardy plays a clone of Picard who is slowly dying and must need Picard's blood to stop the process of his death after an incident involving time. This clone also attempts to destroy Earth for some reason.

What I hate about most Trek films is the fact that they do not properly dedicate enough time to explain the plot. When you take a look at the original trilogy, just in terms of how they explain the plot, it is done simplistically yet effectively, ensuring that even the dumbest can follow the storyline. Most of the Star Trek films suffer from extremely poor writing and execution, Nemesis is one of them. Despite this, the basic premise is enough to keep one engaged throughout the film even if it isn't properly explained.

Patrick Stewart never throughout the series seemed to give an exceptional performance but always a passable performance as Picard. Never does he give a performance, even to the standards of William Shatner or Leonard Nimoy from the original films. The rest of the cast do a decent job, even Tom Hardy, who I've grown to love from films such as The Dark Knight Rises and Inception. All the performances are decent with none ever grabbing one's attention, especially mine.

As ordinary as the performances are, this film has some truly great character moments mainly with Data at the end of the film. The pacing is nothing but decent as most of the "bad" Trek films have. There are a few moments when the story becomes extremely intense and exciting, thanks to some fine action sequences in this film. The effects seem to have definitely improved from the horrible effects of the previous nightmare.

This film does a rather decent job and bidding a much needed farewell to our characters and by the end of the film, despite yet feeling unsatisfying, I was thankful that these old Trek films were done! Star Trek Nemesis is nothing but an ordinary Trek film with some surprisingly good action, decent acting, poor writing and direction in some ways but also decent in other ways. 'Nemesis' is most definitely not worse than the previous installment and by no stretch one of the worst, but also isn't very interesting.