Change Your Image
Tarx309
Reviews
The Defenders (2017)
Not terrible, not great
I had high expectations for this after having enjoyed (almost) everything that Marvel/Netflix have done with this universe. Perhaps that was the problem. Regardless, The Defenders is objectively mediocre in most aspects.
That being said, there are things that work well. There's great chemistry between the leads; Matt, Jessica, Luke, and Danny and their charisma is the strongest part of the show. There's development on these character beyond what we have already seen in their own shows, especially towards the end.
However, the show is bogged down by the thoroughly boring villain that is "The Hand". The plot about their supposed great plan to "take New York" actually dissipates into a story about this supposed super evil organisation that turn out to be just looking for some magic goo that brings eternal life. Yeah. Needless to say, it's a disappointingly dull and uninspired storyline that drags the whole affair down. Most of the plot scenes are tiresome and filled to the brim with exposition; the only good part of the Hand storyline was Sigourney Weaver's character, but in the end she was just as underused as Cottonmouth in Luke Cage. Most of her writing is hugely exposition heavy, making for some really clunky scenes (what happened to "show don't tell"?). She really could have been a great villain, but sadly the writers put little effort into actually developing her.
The plot never goes in a direction that is particularly surprising; that is, the show is too predictable. The biggest shame for me was that this doesn't feel much like what we've come to expect in a Marvel/Netflix show. The tone isn't particularly dark at all - the dark, adult themes and brutal violence that were utilised so well in Daredevil and Jessica Jones are no where to be found here. Apart from a few bloody scenes, The Defenders could almost fit in with the Avengers and that side of the universe. But it shouldn't. These shows are meant to be for a more mature audience that want more than what we get in the Thor and Ant-Man movies.
Most of the episodes aren't particularly bad or particularly great, just okay - like the entire series. I can't complain too much because there is certainly enjoyment to be had in the show, especially for someone like myself who already likes the characters very much. There's some good action, and some poignant scenes towards the end. But for the love of god, fire the showrunners before season two - like virtually all the other reviewers here, I can't help but feel disappointed in the direction they took this in.
War Machine (2017)
Don't bother
This is not a war movie. This is not a comedy. It's barely a drama. This is a two hour movie filled with virtually no plot and absolutely no interesting characters. The movie gives no attempt to develop the characters, with all but Bitt's character being entirely one dimensional, and even though Bitt does have a character, it's a poor and uninteresting one. He gives a laughably over-the-top and often cringe-worthy performance, showing that he was absolutely not right for this role.
As said, it completely falls short as either a war movie or a comedy, both of which it's listed as here on IMDb. There is only one action scene, and I use the term loosely - all it is is a two minute scene which only shows one side shooting a few bullets, and that's it. The comedy on the other hand is totally unfunny and virtually none of it lands. I honestly spent the entire film but knowing this was meant to be a comedy.
So we are left with a film that has no suspense, no tension, no action or effective comedy to take it off the ground. Ultimately this is a dull, lifeless effort at satirizing war that offers almost nothing in terms of entertainment or drama. Don't waste your time.
Iron Fist (2017)
Give it a try
Don't be deterred by the negative reviews. If you didn't read them, you should know that most critics gave Iron Fist poor reviews because of "whitewashing" and "cultural appropriation". Unless you've got a stick up your arse, this shouldn't bother you. Iron Fist has been a white American character for more than 40 years, so it's no outrage that the writers have decided to keep that.
That nonsense aside, the show is actually pretty good. Perhaps it doesn't live up to the other Marvel/Netflix shows, but due to the standard they set, I can't complain. Finn Jones is appropriate casting for the extremely naive and troubled Danny Rand. He performance is appropriately comical, and often over-the-top, but he's the right fit. The supporting cast is also a strong point. Jessica Henwick as Colleen Wing may not be the most developed character, but she's an entertaining sidekick and gives a fine performance. However, it's the morally ambiguous and fascinating trio of the Meachum family who stand out the most. Instead of one simple villain, the show offers us this set of characters, who often switch sides and make surprising decisions, making the audience constantly question who's side each one is really on. They're manipulative, complex and occasionally vicious, this is an enthralling trio of characters whose storyline makes for captivating viewing.
The action is similar to what we saw in Daredevil, and there are some particularly good fights in the final few episodes. The plot itself is strangely unfocused, bouncing between multiple story lines and never really forming one cohesion plot, but this is a minor flaw. If this was a book, it would be a page-turner. There are no particularly weak episodes, so if you were disappointed when Luke Cage lost steam at the end, don't worry - that doesn't happen at all here.
By the end I was satisfied that I watched this, and am glad I gave it a try despite the uncalled for negative reviews. If anything, don't let critics decide what you watch. Make an opinion for yourself. If you liked the other Marvel/Netflix shows, you'll almost certainly like this. Bring on The Defenders!
Desierto (2015)
Repetitive, dull and unimaginative
It's quite incredible that a movie as short as 90 minutes could be so dull and ineffective. But alas, 'Desierto, directed by Jonás Cuarón, does just that. The movie is extremely simplistic to the point where the audience never really knows why any of the events in the movie even happen. There is no discussion of motivation almost all of the characters, and the plot is simply just one long game of cat and mouse with absolutely no twists or surprises along the way.
The mice, in this case, are some of the most uninteresting characters that I have ever had the misfortune of seeing. There was only one moment in the movie which I thought was genuinely an interesting character moment. Perhaps if the cast was larger, and plot more complex, this would not have been such an issue, but unfortunately we have the opposite - the plot literally could not be more basic, and for most of the movie there are only three characters. But these characters are completely unable to carry the movie or make it faintly watchable as they are, simply put, horrendously uninteresting and unimaginative. There is a raccoon who appears for around three seconds in the movie that I swear was more interesting and potent than anyone else in the movie.
The performances, just to add to the shameful mess that is this movie, are fairly poor, save Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the unmotivated, psychotic murderer that randomly comes across a group of survivors and decides to start killing them. So basically his character in The Walking Dead. But even Jeffrey Dean Morgan, with his reliable charm and strong performance, cannot save this one.
There are a few moments of genuine tension, which did have me guessing what would happen next, but that is the only other positive I can squeeze out of this one. This movie is like Catch Me If You Can, but instead of a great story and thoroughly enjoyable characters and performances, you are fed the most repetitive, dull and forgettable excuse for a story and characters that is this movie. Even though 90 minutes may not seem long for a movie, trust me, this will feel like a lifetime.
4/10
Inferno (2016)
Extremely messy and not entertaining
First off, I haven't read the book so I have nothing to compare this to. I went into the cinema with little expectations, as all I'd heard or seen of this movie beforehand was a trailer I watched a few weeks back. Still, this was disappointing and probably a waste of time. Ron Howard has certainly made some great movies and just as certainly some not great ones, and unfortunately Inferno falls into the latter category.
The biggest issue I had is how the story is told. The movie is unbelievably convoluted and extremely messy at some points, with many of the scenes relying heavily on coincidences, and others scenes just being plain silly. The plot is not complicated but it was still hard to follow at times as many important scenes were glossed over and the entire narrative was a huge mess (the directing and editing are particularly poor). The script, too, was noticeably poor and was obviously holding the actors back. Many lines were either very clunky or too cliché. The beginning of the movie is partially entertaining, but it quickly goes down hill, with the final quarter being nothing short of awful. The ending is predictable and overall the last 30 minutes were just laughable.
The acting is mixed. This certainly isn't Tom Hanks' best performance, or even close to that, but at the same time he's as reliably good always. Felicity Jones also gives a good performance, but the supporting cast is where things go wrong. Sidse Babett Knudsen and Ana Ularu give fairly poor performances which, when alongside Tom Hanks, really stick out. Omar Sy is also a weak casting choice, and although Hanks and Jones are good, debatable they don't make up for the rest of the cast. But whether the acting is good or bad, character development is non-existent throughout.
On the other hand, there are a few things that worked. The soundtrack, created by Hans Zimmer, was great to listen to and complimented many otherwise dull scenes. There is a twist around midway thorough the movie that I did not see coming and made one character much more interesting than they had been earlier. However, the movie quickly goes back to being horribly tedious and even the great soundtrack isn't enough to save it.
If you are going to see this, I would advise you prepare yourself with low expectations. Or better yet, just don't bother with this below-bland, messy movie.
Memento (2000)
One of Nolan's best
Having been meaning to watch this movie for along time, I finally got round to it. However after I had finished watching it for the first time I felt a great need to watch it again, and so I ended up watching the entire movie two nights in a row. This was for two reasons: firstly, because the narrative of the movie is very confusing and you have to concentrate very hard just to understand what the heck is going on in most of the scenes, so naturally I knew that if I were to watch it again I would be able to follow it and enjoy it much more; and secondly because the movie was just so, so good the first time around I really, really wanted to see it again. I've been a fan of Nolan's films for a long time now (ever since I first saw Batman Begins) and this was almost the last of his movies that I had left to watch. I love his unique style of directing and have greatly enjoyed all of his films - Memento being no exception.
Like Inception or Interstellar, the plot can be hard to follow and it all only makes sense once you have seen and understood the ending. The narrative is especially unique - the movie is told in two different timelines, one in colour, one in black and white. The black and white timeline is chronological (just like any other movie), but the main timeline, the one in colour, is told non- chronologically, in that the audience sees all the events happening backwards, making the audience have to concentrate very hard to follow the story. The film leads towards the collision of the two timelines - where the chronological storyline meets with the non- chronological storyline - in which the climax of the story takes place.
It's a daunting idea for a movie, and can be difficult to follow at times, but Nolan pulls it off delightfully. Like his other movies, the directing and writing (both done by Nolan) are excellent. The way he shoots the movie is very unique and the way it is edited gives it a very distinctive feel. It's an intense movie, and does well to keep the layer of mystery present throughout, as the audience never quite knows what could happen next.
The performances are also a strong point. Guy Pearce, as the lead, portrays his character in a realistic and suitably depressing manner, and I honestly cannot fault his performance. There aren't many supporting characters, and the only ones that get much screen time are Carrie Ann Moss and Joe Pantoliano's characters. Both give good performances and most importantly fit their roles. The casting is impeccable, but ultimately Guy Pearce steals the show.
This is an incredible movie and anyone who is a fan of unique styles and movies is sure to love this as much as I did. It's a movie which I cannot fault, and by far the best movie I've seen in a long time. 10/10 - would undoubtedly recommend.
Luke Cage (2016)
Another hit for the Netflix/Marvel partnership
Luke Cage is the fourth in the line of Netflix/Marvel series, which includes two seasons of Daredevil and one season of Jessica Jones. Personally I loved Daredevil, although I had mixed feelings regarding Jessica Jones. Thankfully, having recently finished watching Luke Cage (I prefer not to binge things, but instead to take a bit more time on them), I can easily say that Luke Cage, in my opinion, is a brilliant series which easily ranks with the likes of Daredevil.
The cast is remarkably consistent. I found with both Daredevil and Jessica Jones there was always at least one character that I did not like, but with Luke Cage this is not the case. Despite this being an ensemble drama with a large cast, none of the main characters are at all bland and each serves an important purpose. There are many threads to the series' storyline, each of which is moved forward at a moderate pace by the characters. They all serve their purpose, and serve it well. Within the cast we see a great range of characters and characterisations, from a tormented villain to a desperate detective willing to do anything to get her way. Mike Colter leads as the titular character in a very charming and quite subtle performance, but it is obvious straight away that his casting is impeccable - it would be impossible to find a more suitable person for the role.
The villains are another clear strong point. Mahalasha Ali's Cottonmouth is a definite contender for Marvel's best villain yet - he is far above the quality of villain that you might see in any of the Marvel movies (and that includes Loki), and certainly up there with Vincent D'Onofrio's Wilson Fisk (Daredevil) and David Tennant's Kilgrave (Jessica Jones). The other villains are Alfre Woodard's Mariah Dillard - much less of an upfront villain; she is a somewhat sketchy politician who does...sketchy things - and Theo Rossi's 'Shades' - a very intellectual and manipulative man, who starts off as a henchman but attempts to rise above those around him. Both of these villains are something refreshingly different for the Marvel universe. They were both complex, suave and audacious villains who were very enjoyable to watch. I've seen many people list Shades as the standout character of the show, and although I don't quite agree with this (Cottonmouth is the standout for me), he still clearly a remarkable villain whom I loved watching, and also, surely, one of Marvel's best to date. My only complaint is that later in the season they introduce a fourth villain (as though three isn't enough) who clearly is not as strong as any of the others. Even though he's not necessarily a bad villain, he felt quite average and certainly not on the same level as any of the other characters, villain or not.
Like the other Marvel/Netflix series, Luke Cage is decidedly more adult that your typical Marvel product. The story is grounded and realistic; it deals with real life issues instead of delving into your typical sci-fi fare (it is set entirely in Harlem so it largely focuses on racial and political issues). It has a tone and feel to it unlike any of the previous Marvel films or TV shows. This is due in part to the adultness of the show (it's not as violent as Daredevil or Jessica Jones, but makes use of its rating nonetheless), and also in part to the standout soundtrack that is prominent in every episode. Many episodes have live performances (some of which are from real bands and singers - for example Method Man appears in one episode), and a lot of the action sequences are excellently cut with very Harlem-style music. Speaking of the action, this is also a notable point of the series. While the choreography isn't of the quality that you would find in Daredevil, the action is certainly good, and there are several extended action sequences that last a number of minutes which were always entertaining to watch.
Luke Cage is a series with a lot to admire. The music, the cinematography (which, if I didn't mention before, is gorgeous), the characters along with the acting and writing, all come together to form a fantastic series. It is by far the most unique of all the Marvel products, film or TV show; but unlike most shows that are very unique, this is still one that anyone can enjoy (although it's obviously not for children). Without a doubt, this is another hit for the Marvel/Netflix partnership. Bring on Iron Fist.
The Magnificent Seven (2016)
A Western remake with lots to like
The Magnificent Seven is directed by Antoine Fugua and stars Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawk and many others. It is a movie that I had a lot of anticipation for going in, and I am happy to say that I was not disappointed. When making a remake, many directors struggle to find the right line between staying true to the original, while still trying to be it's own thing. This is something director Antoine Fugua excels at - his movie is neither too similar to the original nor too different. Fugua honours the 1960 original movie by adapting the same basic storyline, but along the way he adds some refreshingly new aspects to the story, which distinguish it from the original, and make it memorable in its own right. He changes the characterisation of many of the characters (in particular Vincent D'Onofrio's character, who I guarantee is like nothing you have ever seen before), edits the plot slightly (this time the Seven are hired by a woman seeking revenge for the death of her husband), and also mixes up the ethnicities of the characters (the original was simply seven Americans saving feeble Mexicans from other Americans, whereas this time we have a much more diverse Seven, along with the feeble Mexican aspect being scrapped). Yet at the same time this movie greatly feels like the original, whether that is because it is setup in the same period, with the same story, or perhaps it is because of the little aspects and references, like how they play the original soundtrack during the credits. But whatever it is, it works.
In terms of characters and pace, this movie works very well. The issue I had with the original was that I found the pace to be too slow. This movie fixes that problem well. The pace is somewhat quicker while still not being too quick, and the movie never really gets boring. Even though the bulk of the action is focused in the final act, there is still enough to entertain the viewer throughout the movie. The run time is 2 hours and 12 minutes, which the movie makes use of very well. There is good character development that goes on throughout, from the very start right to the very end, although it has to be said that it would have been nice to know more of the back stories of some of the characters (in particular Ethan Hawke's, whose back story is hinted at but the movie simply leaves it there), as by the end we've only gotten a clear idea of the past of Denzel Washington's character. Still, the characters are likable and each different in their own way. The cast is not just diverse by its ethnicity, but also by the tone and characterisation of each character. The standouts in my eyes were Chris Pratt (who is playing the exact type of Chriss Pratt-y character you would expect him to play) and Ethan Hawke, who gave what was probably the best performance of the whole bunch, and at the same time offered an intriguing character that stuck out in a good way.
However the best part of the movie is the final act. The action is brilliant (if pretty violent for a 12+/PG-13 movie), and there are also some surprisingly poignant and effective scenes in the last act that fit very well into the story. The villain, even if he does not appear much, is also quite memorable - he fits the story well and is an ample villain to be pitched against the Seven. His final scene is especially memorable, and is the cherry-on-top to a great ending, for a great movie.
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
A brilliantly bizarre movie
The Grand Budapest Hotel is unlike anything else I have seen. And for once, that is actually a compliment. Some people may be quick to dismiss this as simply 'style over substance', but I would argue that it has, and exceeds equally brilliantly at both.
In terms of style, this is an excellently shot movie with not one ordinary shot - the cinematography is flawless and includes some very memorable shots. The colours, the music, the ridiculous CGI, and the on-point editing along with every other small detail (like how the shape of the camera lens changes for different time periods) all combine to make a very impressive movie. The cast is almost consistently good, from Ralph Finnes to Bill Murray to Tilda Swinton to Jude Law (although admittedly Edward Norton feels a bit out of place in his role).
In terms of substance, the movie has a depth of heart and feeling that many movies lack. It seeps with nostalgia, and is filled with characters that are surprisingly potent. The movie is filled with a large amount of loss and compassion, yet still makes room for very obvious, and sometimes quite dark, comedy (that certainly hits hard). The ending is subtle but leaves an impact on the audience that will stick with you for a while.
There is not one ordinary thing about this movie. It is comical to the extreme, and with every dose of refreshing originality the movie offers you, along with every marvellous set piece and over the top character, it comes together to form one coherent and bizarre movie, and a great one at that.
Zootopia (2016)
Entertaining enough for all ages
Zootopia is an easy movie to describe. That's neither a compliment nor a criticism, but for the most part this is a pretty straight forward movie. It's about an underdog who rises up to the top (after facing many difficulties, of course); we follow this underdog - Hopper - as she investigates the case of a missing person - a case which get larger and larger as the movie goes on. It follows a very standard formula (the storytelling technique is nothing more than the cop finds the first clue, which leads to second clue, which leads to third clue, etc, until eventually they find the big bad villain). It probably sounds familiar as this is the basic storyline to most detective movies, especially animated ones. But instead of conforming to complete conventionality as you might it would, Zootopia boosts itself by adding in some refreshingly new ideas for such a movie. It's a movie with a valuable message laid out throughout, about not stereotyping or labelling people, and looking past outward appearances. Although it debatable gets a little too preachy at times, you still have to commend the movie for trying to teach the younger end of the audience a very valuable lesson.
The movie never quite hits any of those belly-laugh moments that you often find in a Pixar movie (although one particular scene with a sloth is hilarious), but the humour is good enough to keep older audiences entertained, although most of the humour would certainly work better with a child. The voicing casting is on-point and the movie never really gets dull, so this is sure to entertain all of the family - just as an animated movie should do.
Shutter Island (2010)
Neither Scorese's worst nor his best
Shutter Island is a movie that I had fairly large expectations of. Based off the rating I've given it, it's needless to say they weren't entirely fulfilled. Let's start with the positives. The opening is intriguing and effectively introduces the audience to the characters and the general plot line. It's a suspenseful opening, and gives the audience a good basic idea of the characters. The principle four characters are played by Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley and John Carroll Lynch. DiCaprio is reliable as always, and gives what it obviously the best performance of the entire movie. He effectively mixes torment, determination and grief all into one high quality performance. Ruffalo and Kingsley both give good work as well, even if they are slightly overshadowed by both DiCpario's performance and character. John Carroll Lynch was also as good as always, although his character is not developed enough to justify his large portion of screen time. The characters are, for the most part, good and well written. However as the movie unravels, and they unravel with it as we learn more about them and who they truly, the characters become much less appetising. The simple way to put it is plot development at the expense of the characters. As the plot thickens, the characters become far less appealing.
The problem is that it all feels like its been done before. The movie builds suspense up to the final act, and when we finally get to the climax - which is more than two hours into the movie - the only feeling I was left with was disappointment. And even the building to the climax is too long; at times it feels it would benefit from a faster pace and a smaller run time. At a grand total of 138 minutes, it's only natural that the audience would question whether that is strictly necessary; and in this case, sadly, it is not. This is a movie that would greatly benefit from some more original ideas, for it all feels a little too cliché. There is twist after twist to the point where it all overloads. Too often Scorsese doesn't take the time to develop one plot point, but instead tosses aspects of the movie away every ten minutes or so, and then moves onto the next. The movie is bloated with ideas, none of which are particularly new, all of which are let down by a disappointing end.
Still, this isn't necessarily a bad movie. There are faults, yes, but the aching sense of mystery that simultaneously accompanies the characters and the story helps to keep the audience invested, and some great cinematography doesn't go amiss either. In the end this is not a movie I will be watching again, but neither is it a movie I would warn people against watching. I'm sure it's not Scorsese's best work, but it's probably not his worst either.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Jim Carrey's best
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a difficult movie to describe. Probably because it's unlike any movie I've seen before. It's almost like a romantic version of Inception (but without all the suicide). The movie takes place inside Jim Carrey's characters mind and takes the audience through a series of non-chronological flashbacks to fully explain the complicated relationship between Jim Carrey's Joel and Kate Winslet's Clementine. The plot, without spoiling it, is like something out of a science fiction movie but instead set in modern time and with very realistic, grounded characters - one of the many reasons why this works so well. The characters are entertaining, but at the same time delicate and real. Jim Carrey gives a great performance (one of the best I've seen from him), but it is Kate Winslet who really takes the cake. Her acting in this movie is fantastic - probably the best I've seen from her. The supporting cast consists of Mark Ruffalo, Elijah Wood, Tom Wilkinson and Kirsten Dunst; each of which fit into the story very well (they all appear in present time, and not in the Jim Carrey's mind or the flashbacks), and each plays their own important part to the story, subtly adding something unique in their own right.
In some ways this isn't the type of movie I often watch. It is described as a drama, romance, comedy and fantasy by IMDb, and succeeds as all but one of those. As a romance, it is effective - greatly relying on the undeniable chemistry between Carrey and Winslet; it is poignant but touching. As a drama, it works from start to finish, even when a lot of the drama is focusing the secondary characters, and not Carrey or Winslet (one very effective reveal with Kirsten Dunst's character you'll never see coming). As a fantasy, in it's own weird way, it also works: the plot, again without spoiling anything, involves going into peoples minds and attempting to delete memories (see the similarities with Inception now?), and has the dazzling originality that many modern movies lack. But it is only as a comedy that it slightly falls down. I giggled a grand total of twice throughout the movie, because ultimately the rest of the comedy fell flat. Writer Charlie Kaufman clearly put a lot of work into the characters and story (and did an excellent job there), but evidently put little work into the uninspired humour that accompanies the movie. It probably would have worked better if all the comedy was simply wiped from the script.
But putting that aside there is nothing more to criticise. The third act and especially the climax is mesmerising and perhaps even genius; the plot is clever and more than anything original; the cast is spot-on and the acting is great. This is undoubtedly an extremely weird movie, but whether or you like it or not, it is certainly unforgettable; and if you like it, you'll probably love it.
The Magnificent Seven (1960)
An agonisingly slow pace and under-developed story prevents this from being truly great
The Magnificent Seven is a 1960's western directed by John Sturges. It's a movie that I had heard of but knew little about before watching, and left me with mixed feelings. There are things that work, and the acting is (mostly) strong, but ultimately the film is dragged down by an agonisingly slow pace. This is 128 minute film which would probably work better if it were half that length. It takes the first 45 minutes before they have even recruited the seven (in a very Avengers Assemble-type-way), and then they go to protect a villain from plundering bandits. The issue is that the plot doesn't really develop from there. Director John Sturges focuses entirely on characterisation instead of genuine story development, so the end result is a film with great characters but a story that drags on and on, which passed its sell-by-date within the first hour.
However the plus-side to this is that the film contains some genuinely good characters, who mostly manage to keep it entertaining, even when the pace drags it down. Yul Brynner as Chris Larabee Adams and the great Steve McQueen as Vin Tanner both offer great performances and characters - it is these two that keep the film afloat. The villain of the story, Calvera, played by Eli Wallach is somewhat average but at the same time the exact type of villain you would expect from this type of film, so in that way he serves his purpose. The casting is on- point and there are only a couple of weak performances, so on the whole there are few complaints there.
Being a western about 1870's gunslingers and bandits, an audience would naturally assume that this would be a movie packed with action, but unfortunately this is no where near the case. There is virtually no trace of action within the first 70 minutes of the movie, and even after then, there are only two real shootouts, which, although they were well shot and entertaining in themselves, were far too infrequent. In a movie already dragged down by a very slow pace, a bit of action here and there would go a long way; but audiences are bound to be disappointed as they are instead forced to listen to endless monologues about not giving up and fighting to survive, yet ironically we barely see any of this.
If you're looking for a movie that focuses mostly on characters instead of action or story, this will probably please you (although you'd be better off watching the 2015 Steve Jobs movie, which does a much better job of both characters and story), but if you're looking for an action-packed Western with a strong story, look away - you will not find that here. Still, the characters are certainly good, and the acting complements them, along with a great, Oscar-nominated soundtrack by Elmer Bernstein that all works together to make this a just-about-enjoyable movie that still, in 2016, has its strengths.
Finding Dory (2016)
The sequel that everyone hoped for
Finding Dory is an extremely delightful sequel to the 2003 classic animated film, Finding Nemo. Aside from the great Inside Out, I found Pixar's films to have lapsed slightly in quality in recent years, with films such as Cars 2, Brave and Monsters University not reaching the feats that Pixar has often reached. However Finding Dory is not only a welcome return to form for Pixar, but certainly one of Pixar's best movies to date. The story is strong, and thankfully is not just a rehash of the previous film. But what makes the film so memorable is the excellent characters and voice cast. Ellen DeGeneres is fantastic as Dory and hits every note very well; Albert Brooks as Marlin and Hayden Rolence as Nemo are both great also; and the entire cast of supporting actors (which includes Idris Elba, Dominic West, Sigourney Weaver, Bill Hader and Ty Burrell) are all very memorable in their own right - it is the characters that really make this film swim, and swim it does.
As you would expect from Pixar, the animation is top-notch as always. But what surprised me the most about this movie is how genuinely hilarious it is. The gags are non-stop throughout the film (which is something you cannot say for many modern comedies) - some of which are extremely funny, and the running jokes all work very well. It is also a surprisingly emotional film that almost had me crying at one point, and is a film that certainly has the same heart as the original did.
In conclusion, Finding Dory doesn't feel at all lazy or like a rehash - instead, it is original in its own right while still paying homage to its predecessor. It is hilarious, heartfelt, and has some of the best characters in modern animation. It is exactly what a sequel should be.
Stranger Things (2016)
A mashup of 80's sci-fi that mostly works
Stranger Things is an eight-episode Netflix original series created by the Duffer Brothers. Upon its release, it gained phrase from audiences and critics alike. After having been recommended this series by multiple people, I began to watch it fairly recently. I cannot say it hooked me - otherwise I would have finished it days earlier - but it was entertaining enough to watch all the way through. A lot worked in terms of characters and their development, but there were two particular things that didn't work; which I will talk about later in this review.
In terms of positives, there is enough to phrase here. The characters and strong and effectively carry the show - the group of kids, who are the most central characters, are all particularly entertaining and witty - even if some of their performances aren't great. Winona Ryder's acting is by far the best, and David Harbour also gives a good performance (and a great character) as the police chief. The teenage characters aren't quite as strong, and the typical love triangle sub-plot bores, but none of them are bad. The character development throughout the series is great, making all the characters more and more likable as the series goes on. On the whole, the casting is excellent - everyone fits their part very well.
Thankfully, it is consistent in its quality. None of the episodes are bad; although none of them are fantastic either. For me, each episode scores a 7 or an 8. The consistency keeps it from getting boring, which made it a series which I wanted to watch to the end. The other positives include a great soundtrack which works very well with the show's themes and scenes; a fun, if very retro title sequence; and generally good dialogue throughout.
However, as mentioned above, there are two places in which this series falls down. The first of which is the lack of originality and clichés. This series is ultimately a homage of 80's sci-fi - there are scenes that reference, and steal from movies such as E.T., Aliens, The Thing, The Goonies and many more. At first the nostalgic references may work - but as the show goes on you release that it is not just referencing these movies, but blatantly stealing from them. Not one thing in this entire series is particularly original - everything becomes ridiculously clichéd and thus predictable. Unless this is the first movie or TV show you have ever seen, you will probably find the predictability and clichéness of this series very annoying (as I did).
The other main issue is that almost all the twists are revealed far too early. There are too few surprises. We learn most things before the characters do and then have to watch as they finally catch up with the audience, which sometimes takes multiple episodes. So when a big shock comes around for the characters, there is absolutely no shock for the audience; which ultimately makes a lot of the series much less effective.
But despite this, there are enough human dramas, engaging characters and sci-fi elements to make this an enjoyable eight episodes. In the end I would recommend this to a friend, even though this series falls short of the heights of the films it aspires to be.
Lost (2004)
Lost - Season 1 review
(This review is for the first season only)
Lost Season 1 first aired in 2004 and was created J.J. Abrams, Jeffrey Lieber and Damon Lindelof. It is about the survivors of a plane crash as they are forced to work to survive together. It has a large ensemble cast of lots of different characters. While I cannot talk about all of these characters individually in this review, I will say and the majority of the characters work, although some do not. A big issue is that the lead character, played by Matthew Fox, fails to impress on a large level. His character is fairly bland, and lacks enough of an interesting arc to make him entertaining. Thankfully, many of the supporting cast work better. Dominic Monaghan, Jorge Garcia and Naveen Andrews all hit well with their characters. However it is Soya, played very convincingly by Josh Holloway, who works the best. His character, despite being the least popular of the group, is by far the most entertaining for the audience. He is charismatic, witty, and hugely entertaining when he gets an episode devoted to him. There are a few other characters that work less well, such as Yunjin Kim's Sun Kwon and Ian Somerhalder's terribly acted Boone Carlyle. Unfortunately there are multiple episodes that are majorly dragged down by the less interesting characters. Still, the good outweighs the bad here.
This is a series that, like many others, has some standout episodes and some poor episodes. It is not consistent in its quality, and sometimes you will get a great episode one week and a bad episode the next. The standouts include "Deus Ex Machina", "Outlaws" and "Do No Harm"; whereas the weakest episodes are "Raised by Another", "Born To Run" and "Whatever the Case May Be". The first few episodes failed to grip me, and were generally mediocre, but thankfully it picks up as it goes along. The second half of the season was definitely better than the first, and the last five episodes were especially good.
What this series does well is keep the sense of mystery and suspense prominent throughout. There are some very well shot sequences that do well to heighten the suspense that are very enjoyable to watch, and at the some the mystery caries on throughout the season. There are many unanswered questions (some of which are unfortunately not even answered by the end of the season) which keep the viewer interested.
Each episode has two parts - around two thirds of the episode is set on the island, the other third consists of flashbacks, which focus on one of the many characters on the island. In order to keep it interesting, the character who is focused on in the flashbacks changes each episode. Neither section of the episode is consistently better than the other - some episodes had much better flashbacks than island scenes, and vice versa. The flashbacks are used as a clever tool to build on the characters on the island, while simultaneously telling the viewer more about them.
In conclusion, Lost is a cleverly written series that has enough interesting characters and suspenseful story arcs to keep it interesting for the audience. Not everything works, but when it hits, it hits well.
Creed (2015)
The best movie of in the Rocky franchise since the original
Creed is the seventh instalment in the Rocky franchise but this time focuses on Adonis Creed, Apollo Creed's son. Adonis Creed is spectacularly played by the perfectly cast Michael B. Jordan in what may be his best role and performance to date. The movie once again features Sylvester Stallone as Rocky Balboa - Stallone's performance is surprisingly effective; he embodies the character perfectly after Rocky Balboa in 2006, ten years ago. His acting in this movie is far better than you might expect from him at this stage, but you will be pleasantly surprised - he won Best Supporting Acting at the Golden Globes for a reason. Tessa Thompson plays Bianca, Adonis' love interest, who gives a deceptively complex character that adds something great to the movie.
What the movie gives for the first half is familiar fare for these movies - displaying the well earned nostalgia that these movies have earned - but at the same time director Ryan Coogler manages to revivify the series, and through his strong and clearly talented directing makes the movie stand alone as a genuinely strong dramatic piece. For long time fans of the series, this movie will be particularly emotionally potent, but even to new time fans this is will still be a strong movie. Cinematographer Maryse Alberti does a great job shooting the movie and in his own right adds something excellent to the movie (an almost five minute boxing scene which is all shot in one take is particularly mesmerising).
In conclusion, Creed is an excellent movie - the best since the 1976 original, which can, in a large part, be put down to Ryan Coogler's fantastic directing. The characters are very strong, in particular Michael B. Jordan's, and the acting also great. It does justice to the previous movies while at the same time trying something new and effective.
The Woman in Black (2012)
Enjoyable in part, but undermined by the end
I don't often watch horror movies, but this was an exception. I don't dislike the genre, I just prefer others. However I had heard good things about this movie and was able to watch it for free so I sat down with some friends and gave it a try. For the first act, I enjoyed it quite a lot. The lead character, played by Daniel Radcliffe, is by far the strongest part of the movie and as the entire first act was focusing on his characterisation I enjoyed it a lot. Daniel Radcliffe was perfectly cast in a refreshingly different role for him; he was realistic enough to believe and a well written character for the purpose of the story. My only gripe is that there were a couple of false notes in Daniel Radcliffe's acting which stood out once or twice, but nothing big. The rest of the cast is agreeable as well; the only other main cast member, Ciarán Hinds' Sam Daily was believable and did his job well, even if his character lacked an interesting enough arc.
A major issue with this movie is that it is traditional and clichéd to a fault. The characters are very traditional to such a horror movie (there is of course the frightened locals and the sceptical rich guy who won't believe a word of ghost stories), and there are also the traits and clichés that you might find in any 90's horror movie. The third act is especially weak. It becomes unbearably traditional, in that it lacks originality. However the worst part of the movie by far is the extremely poor ending that not only undermines the rest of the movie but makes everything up to that point look weak. It's over the top, very predictable and perhaps even silly. Still, at least the movie doesn't bore.
There are a few other ups and downs about this movie. There are some genuinely effective jump scares, and some good set pieces that work well to create the mood. The writing and directing is good enough, but nothing special. The soundtrack is good and sticks out in multiple scenes, and thus lifting the movie somewhat. Finally there is some poor editing (in particular in the sound department) that needs to be fixed, but nothing too big. In the end you will probably enjoy the majority of this movie, which is helpfully lifted by Daniel Radcliffe, but even he can't save some of the movie's flaws, in particular the very weak ending.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
A disappointing mess that even Batman can't save
The only ample word to sum up this movie is 'disappointing'. This is an extremely overstuffed and convoluted movie with many flaws and not much to make up for them. It is probably fair to mention that the huge expectations for this movie were never realistically going to be fulfilled - however nobody really expected this to be as bad as it was.
There are firstly a few overlaying problems that are prominent throughout the movie. For one, Zack Snyder's directing. Most people seem to lay most of the blame for the failure of this movie on Zack Snyder himself. As a director, he does not find any ways to grip the audience with any of the characters or story. This became a large problem with the movie as the lack of intensity made it all quite boring. There is no fun or humour in this movie, the whole atmosphere is pretentiously dark and depressing to the point of absurdity. The whole movie takes itself far too seriously and becomes almost laughable by the end. Another prominent issue is the script. Every character, whether interesting or not, is hugely let down by the poor and sometimes laughable dialogue that infects every scene. Without any decent writing or directing, is it really a surprise this movie didn't work?
Unfortunately the issues do not stop there. Many of the characters and castings are less than mediocre. This movie is overstuffed with so many characters and subplots that it all becomes very convoluted and distorted. The villains are beyond bad: Jesse Eisenberg gives the worst performance of his career (and the year?), in a character that could be perhaps branded as the worst comic book movie villain to date. His mannerisms, idiosyncrasies and dialogue are hugely misguided and make his character very painful to watch. His plan is simple and the conclusion to his storyline laughably silly. The other villain is shoehorned into the end of the movie with the lack of necessity and poor CGI that one might expect from a Zack Snyder movie. As far as villains go, these are as bad as they get.
There is also a far too large cast of superheros in this movie. Wonder Woman serves absolutely no purpose - she is shoehorned in as a kind of Justice League tie-in but ultimately is redundant. You could remove her from every scene in the movie, and nothing would change. Gal Gadot does a mediocre job at playing her, but lacks the enthusiasm or charisma to make any lasting affect on the audience. One of the title characters, Superman, is also poorly used. Henry Cavill's acting is stiff and wooden once again, to the point where watching him try to act becomes genuinely painful. Superman is portrayed as an imprudent, egotistical and delusion fool who seems to believe the only way to settle something is by fighting. However, thankfully there is a silver linings in the cast: Ben Affleck's Batman/Bruce Wayne. By far the best character in the movie, Ben Affleck carries the character with the intensity and suave that such a character needs. His scenes were, to put it bluntly, the only interesting ones, which were also made better by Jeremy Iron's enjoyable Alfred.
Another problem with the movie is it ultimately relies on action and explosions rather than anything else. There is nothing intellectual about it - every character wants to fight his way out of everything and nothing is resolved with any intelligence. The ending and conclusion, without spoiling it, to the Batman v Superman storyline is almost offensively bad. Which just serves as proof that no actual thought or good writing went into this movie.
The Revenant (2015)
Best movie I saw all year
"Best movie I saw all year" is not something I say lightly. The Revenant is not only an unforgettable movie with top notch acting and cinematography, it is a filmmaking triumph. Going into the theatre I had seen no trailers, clips or much advertising at all. However, I was astounded by the movie I saw. Alejandro G. Iñárritu's has crafted a supremely brutal and harsh movie with outstanding realism as it portrays a vivid tale of human endurance and revenge. Iñárritu takes complete control of the movie with outstanding directing that was not matched by anyone in 2015. He rightfully won the Oscar, Bafta, Golden Globe and every other award for directing. He carries the movie with such commendable intensity and confidence that a movie like this needs. He successfully builds up the tension throughout the movie, from the brutal beginning scene to the amazing climax. It is hard to imagine anyone else doing such a good job at directing this movie - and perhaps that is because no one else could.
However Iñárritu is not the only great filmmaker here. The films cinematography is especially good. Three-time Oscar winning Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography is sensationally vivid and realistic - nothing short of masterful. The makeup, costume design and visual effects are also strong, but it is the acting that really shines. Leonardo DiCaprio (finally) snagged an Oscar for his outstanding turn as Hugh Glass; a performance that was not even closely matched this year. It is by far his most difficult role yet, and at the same time, perhaps his best. Glass' quest for revenge is edge-of-your-seat stuff - a relentless quest that leaves the audience in awe. Tom Hardy also was nominated for Best Actor here, but for some outrageous reason was beaten by Mark Rylance. Given his performance and difficult character in this movie, that seems preposterous when you begin to contemplate it. He successfully plays one of the most authentically evil villains in recent history - a character with no signs of either empathy or morals. Not an easy role to play, but perhaps that's why they chose Tom Hardy for the job.
The whole cast is at the top of their game, with the supporting cast of Domhnall Gleeson, Will Poulter and Forrest Goodluck all giving surprisingly good performances. All the characters are original and particularly realistic, which helps to make this an especially relentless and authentic movie. The Revenant is as thrilling and brutal and as a sheet of sharp ice held to the skin, but by gosh, it's entertaining.
Sicario (2015)
An incredibly intense and unique film
Sicario was one of the most overlooked movies of 2015. It was given little recognition at the Oscars, yet was far more entertaining than many of the other nominees (I'm looking at you, Bridge of Spies). Sicario is a contemporary movie set in the drug-ridden streets of Mexico. It is a simple, relatively small-scale movie, but very entertaining. The opening of Sicario unfolds at such an intense level that it seems impossible for director Villeneuve to sustain it, let alone build on it, but somehow he manages to do just that. The edging tension building up throughout the movie is the product of some very strong directing, which is evident throughout the movie. The movie is relentless in its tension, which doesn't cease until the credits role.
The cast is also one of the movie's strongest points. Emily Blunt is a fantastic lead, with a great realism to her character. Benicio Del Toro's acting is strong also, as he plays a mysterious and almost creepy assassin with next to no empathy. But perhaps Josh Brolin plays the most memorable character. Witty, passionate and surreal, Josh Brolin truly shines here. The most annoying part is that Jon Bernthal, who is listed as the 5th top star here on IMDb, is unfortunately in less than ten minutes of the movie. It seems bizarre that they would hire such a great, upcoming actor behind roles such as The Punisher and Shane Walsh (not to mention some big, Oscar winning movies like The Wolf of Wall Street) and barely even use him. Still, his brief appearance is still noteworthy.
It's hard to find fault with Sicario. On the level of craft and performances, it's spotless. If you're looking for a great meaning or message, you'll be disappointed here. The movie would perhaps benefit from not being so small-scale, as by the end there is a feeling that it all didn't amount to much. Still, it's an edge-of-your-seat thriller that is sure to stick with you for a while.
Fear the Walking Dead: The Good Man (2015)
It's not like we expected this to be great
Another disappointing episode. Probably the best episode of the season, but still not very good. Logic was completely absent, and as always there were very poor decisions in the writing, like somehow finding 10000 zombies to unleash on the military (and then letting them all get killed for no reason) just to rescue two people. All the characters are agonisingly bad at this point, aside from Strand. But even if Strand was more intriguing than any other character on the show, the insultingly bad writing held him and everything else back.
There were some good things about this episode though. The ending and Liza's death packed some emotional weight, although I never cared for her at all (it was more the effect it had on the other characters that mattered). For once there was some actual action and scenes with actual zombies (because for some reason the show usually lacks that...), which was fairly fun to watch. There was also a quite tense atmosphere throughout the episode, as they nailed the pacing right on - it was a much faster moving, and eventful episode than usual.
In the end this was a just about enjoyable finale, and certainly better than the previous five episodes, but that's not saying much.
Jessica Jones (2015)
AKA Difficult to enjoy
This show is a complete missed opportunity. After having watch Daredevil and thoroughly enjoyed it, I was really looking forward to this. However in comparison to Daredevil this show falls flat. That's not to say there aren't good aspects - its just this show is hugely underwhelming for an avid Marvel fan like myself; and I will explain why.
Right from the first episode it was clear there were issues with some of the characters and casting. Apart from Luke, the supporting cast isn't just a missed bag - it's a giant bag of offensively poor characters. Trish didn't seem to serve any more purpose than just being Jessica's friend, and even that felt forced. Malcolm was especially cringeworthy - poorly written and poorly acted. Pam, Jeri and Wendy occupied a totally unnecessary storyline that shouldn't have been included in the show, and just felt like filler. Finally Robyn and Will were almost enough to make me stop watching this show all together; never before have I seen such a horrendous mixture of poor acting, poor writing and generally uninteresting characters. All of their scenes were very painful to watch. On the other hand you have Luke, who I personally thought was great and am certainly looking forward to his own show. Jessica was far too one-tone for me. I didn't feel they developed her character enough and all I saw was repetition in the way she was written. However the place this show really shines is with Kilgrave - one of Marvel finer, if not finest villains to date. David Tennant played him fantastically and I genuinely enjoyed every scene he was in. The only problem was the limited screen time he occupied. The writers clearly didn't have enough plot points to keep him going throughout the series, so in the end he wasn't even in the show that much. There were some episodes which he didn't appear in at all, and only two where he was prominent throughout. For the rest of the series he was in roughly five to ten minutes of the episodes, which were always the best part of the episode for me. It become increasingly frustrating when the writers continually side-lined the only very strong aspect of the show they had (Kilgrave), and subsequently the show suffered because of this.
The writers did not nail the pace at all. It was as though they had only a few plot points that they wanted to stretch out over a thirteen episode series; the end result being a very unevenly structured show. There were far to many filler episodes throughout the series (and a show like this really shouldn't have any) which were all quite painful to watch, and subtracted from the far superior Kilgrave plot line. However when the show did stick to the Kilgrave orientated plot it worked much better, and the show would have had a great cohesion if it weren't for the multiple filler episodes. The writers clearly had trouble fitting all the characters into the main plot, so instead they left many in their own sub-plots, which failed to contribute much to the show. There was some good action (albeit action was very rare) and tense moments, although ultimately many of the episodes remained very uneventful and lacked in substance. This lead to an agonisingly slow pace to the show, and some highly boring episodes. The show was predictable, and even the end felt very anti-climatic.
In the end, would I recommend this to somebody? The simple answer is no. If you are an avid fan of the Marvel universe and are hellbent on watching all of its properties, then go right ahead and give this a try, but don't expect it to be as good as Daredevil or many of the MCU movies. But if you're not a giant Marvel fan, I would say don't bother with this show - there are better out there.
Jessica Jones: A.K.A. Smile (2015)
Very anti-climactic, although still a good ending
Things really started moving in this episode, and thankfully it was a very eventful. The pace was quite fast and we got some good character moments, especially from Kilgrave. There was a great lead-up to the final scene between Jessica and Kilgrave, although, even after the constant intensity leading up to it, the conclusion to the series was far too anti-climactic and quick. Aside from this it was a mostly solid episode, and I feel it's good that they still left some threads still answered (in particular Trish and her mother's storyline), so there is something to look forward to for the next season. Although killing off Kilgrave may damage the next season, as it's obviously going to be hard to find an ample villain to replace him. In the end this was a satisfying and fast paced conclusion to a series that has often been extremely slowly paced in the past.
Jessica Jones: A.K.A. Take a Bloody Number (2015)
Extremely uneventful, but a very good final act
Most of this episode was utterly unnecessary - there were barely any plot points and nothing was developed. It was as though the writers wanted to save everything for the finale, and subsequently had nothing to put in this episode. It was dull for the most part, although it was good to see Luke Cage again. Trish's subplot was the worst of it all - it subtracted from the main Kilgrave plot line and didn't interest at all.
However the final act was a large improvement - there was some great action, and great character moments from Jessica, Kilgrave and Luke. Albeit the twist that Luke was actually working for Kilgrave the whole time was laughably predictable, ergo that scene held no levity. The very last moment was very interesting, although slightly held back as the audience knows they wouldn't kill him off at this stage. Altogether an offensively dull episode, that was only slightly helped off the ground by a killer ending.