Reviews

I had high hopes for this movie going in. I love all of Nolan's other movies, and I actually worked as a scientist at Los Alamos for several years (many years after the Manhattan project), and so I'm very familiar with the underlying physics, the New Mexico landscape, and the constant tension between scientific research and security concerns. If anyone was going to enjoy this movie, it was me!

And to be fair, I did basically enjoy it, mostly. Seeing a story I thought I knew fairly well brought to life, including many extra details that I didn't know about, was definitely interesting. The acting is undoubtedly top notch. But is it a Great Movie? Well, no.

The main issue here is that the central thread that the movie hangs on is the meeting to determine whether Oppenheimer's security clearance should be renewed. A secondary thread is the review as to whether Strauss should be appointed commerce secretary. Both of these threads are essentially courtroom dramas with a lot of talking back and forth, which can be pretty dry. But more importantly, the stakes don't feel that high (it's not life or death), and the arguments for and against the people concerned are not that interesting. I get that the movie uses these things as framing devices to cover a lot of more interesting topics, in the form of flashbacks, but it just feels like the balance is off. There's just way too much time spent in the courtroom, especially towards the end of the three hours, and the rest of the content feels fragmented and rushed.

And the famous Trinity test explosion scene that doesn't use any CGI? Yeah, it shows, and not in a good way.

In conclusion, an interesting study of an interesting guy, well acted, and nicely shot. But a bit unfocused and probably 30 minutes too long. 7/10, though I might have given it 8/10 I didn't feel it was so over-rated...

Cliched generic fantasy with stilted acting and terrible dialog. Stereotyped characters, one of whom is the chosen one, are on the run from the forces of dark. So far, so familiar. Two episodes in and I don't really care about any of the characters, and the pacing feels both slow and rushed at the same time. I'll throw in a few stars for the cinematography and some of the effects, though in places the CGI is weak. I'll keep watching 'cos I'm a sucker for the genre, but not optimistic. It's no Game of Thrones, or Carnival Row for sure. I'm not even sure it's up to Shadow and Bone, and I'd rank it behind the Witcher.

Rowling's book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, carried the series into a whole new dimension - that dimension being the thickness of the volumes. Almost twice the length of its predecessor this mega-tome was always going to be problematic to condense into a watchable movie. For my money, Mike Newell's result is a valiant, but predictably rushed and uneven affair that will leave fans of the series disappointed at what was left out, but that will also leave newcomers (if there are any people still in this category out there!) bewildered as to what on earth is happening. The movie felt exactly like the edited highlights of a much longer movie that had been roughly pasted together. As a side effect of having to race through the story, there is no time to develop any real depth in the characters, which is unfortunate. (In most cases, anyway: with each new episode I grow ever more irritated with Daniel Radcliffe's wide-eyed and mumbling performance as Harry.) Interestingly, the one character who displays any real passion is Voldemort, played by Ralf Fiennes, and I look forward to seeing more of him.

In summary, not the best of the series so far (that honor surely goes to Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban), but not a bad effort given the challenges imposed by the book. I'm hopeful that a decent movie can be made out of the next book, which although it's even longer, has in many ways a more straightforward storyline (and more things that can be cut). 7/10

Reading through the long list of glowing reviews on this website, I can only conclude that there are currently two movies called "A History of Violence" doing the rounds. One of these is a deep, moving, and well-acted thriller; while the other is the pile of crap that I've just seen.

Well, OK, the film wasn't completely awful, but you have to feel a movie isn't hitting the mark when intense meaningful looks from the lead actor merely provoke peals of laughter from the audience. The basic ideas weren't bad, but everything was treated in the most simplistic way possible, from the clichéd mobsters to the boringly predictable reactions of the wife to Tom's shadowy past. And the sex scenes! While this movie does probably represent your only chance this year to see Viggo Mortensen performing oral sex on a woman in a cheerleader's outfit, it was all just so obviously tacked on to add interest and (gasp!) shock value to an otherwise plodding movie. It just didn't fit in. The few brief moments of action were fine, I suppose, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Anyway, this is more than enough words wasted on a fairly mediocre movie already, so I'll stop there. 6/10

I find it interesting to see so many people referring to this movie as a remake of the earlier movie with Gene Wilder. The way I see it, both movies are simply remakes of the fantastic vision described in Roald Dahl's book. Neither movie is perfect, but of the two I significantly prefer Tim Burton's effort.

Part of this simply comes down to a bigger budget and 34 years progress in special effects of course, but Burton's directing style and flair for juxtaposing the surreal with an exaggerated version of normality is just tailor-made for this job, and he does not let us down. The sets are beautiful, and the characters, with the exception of one, are spot-on perfect renderings of Dahl's caricatures.

Curiously enough, I think the weakest point of both movies is in their portrayals of Wonka himself. Gene Wilder was sufficiently eccentric, but just a tad too genial. The Wonka of the books has a distinctly callous streak and a cruel sense of humor. He obviously takes great delight in seeing the bad kids get what they deserve, for instance. On the other hand, Depp's Wonka perhaps goes too far the other way. He has the right kind of flippant indifference, but also has too many moments of self-doubt and uncertainty. The Wonka of the books was above all supremely confident in his own abilities. The flashbacks to Wonka's past in this movie just seemed to weaken the character.

But at the end of the day, these movies are adaptations and certain changes are inevitable. I liked Depps's Wonka, even if it wasn't quite what I expected.

A few highlights, in case you're not already convinced:

• The songs. I was laughing non-stop through every one... And unlike in the earlier movie these songs actually use Dahl's original lyrics.

• The effects. As you'd expect from Tim Burton, the film is a weird and wonderful visual feast. A perfect match for Dahl's quirky ideas.

• Depp. As ever, a masterful performance. Even more deranged than the book version, but an interesting take on the character.

• The story. Except for some slightly unnecessary diversions into Wonka's past, it by and large it follows the book, which is a good thing.

• The kids. Each and every one is a perfect stereotype.

• The Oompa-Loompas.

• The 2001: A space Odyssey references (and other movie references, e.g. Depp with the scissors in the beginning).

• Just about everything else...

If I had to pick one other flaw, it would be that the movie takes a little too long to get going in the beginning. But just hang in there, wait for the factory gates to open, and enjoy the ride...

Bring on the Great Glass Elevator!

9/10

My only regret about this movie is reading the spoilers that almost every review of it seems to contain, before seeing the movie... I wish I'd had to discover what was going on at the beginning myself!

Everything else I could say about this movie has been said already. Kaufman's best story, a fantastic cast, beautifully directed, etc. The closest comparison is probably with 'Vanilla Sky' (aka 'Abre Los Ojos'), though this movie delivers much more humor, of a surreal and dark variety (a la 'Being John Malkovich'). If you liked either of these movies, then this is a no brainer. Go see it so that more movies like this will be made!

10/10

An odd film, this: so highly placed in the IMDB Top 250 yet so many negative user comments! I guess you'll either love it or hate it and so the only point in writing anything about it is to help you decide which camp you're going to fall into.

So, on the positive side, most of the martial arts scenes are definitely cool, in an exaggerated matrix-like way. There are plenty of nice touches scattered throughout the rest of the story as well. Without giving anything away, I particularly like the scene where Su Lien demonstrates that she knows who the thief is. The acting of the principals is good. If you're going to see one Chinese movie this year, it might as well be this one.

But on the downside, I can't help wondering how well this movie would have fared if it didn't have the foreign movie mystique. The plot is at times confusing. The intent seems to be to not waste any time on introductions and so catapult the viewer directly into the story, but it's easy to miss things the first time round. The story is also very fragmented and jumps around from place to place without much obvious connection. Despite this, it also feels very slow. People seem to be willing to forgive these faults in this movie for some reason, though they might pan a domestic movie for the same things.

But probably the worst bits for me are the ubiquitous wire effects. Some people go on about the effortless way in which the main characters seem to float through the landscape. But for me, the main characters are so obviously swinging around on the ends of cables that it completely destroys any feeling of immersion. These effects are almost a parody of bad filmmaking and every time I saw Li Mu Bai being dangled awkwardly over the rooftops, it wrenched me out of the fantasy experience and reminded me that I was watching a movie.

In summary, a flawed classic. Very different from your average Hollywood production, though that in itself does not make a great movie! Some decent martial arts scenes and some good moments. But ultimately too fragmented and slow to live up to its overhyped reputation.

7/10

While T-1 delivered an action-packed and original story on an amazingly low budget, and T-2 added considerable depth and spectacular special effects, the third element of the T-Trilogy seems to be a step backwards.

It's not all bad, mind you. All the usual action features are well done and the car chase scene is spectacular (if slightly drawn out). John Connor is also a convincing dropout trying to avoid his fate - a nice contrast with the sometimes annoyingly self-confident Connor of T-2.

But what this installment fails to deliver is any real innovation. It ties up a few loose ends and adds a few arbitrary twists, but it just felt a little empty in comparison to the first two.

If you're a sci-fi, Arnold or action flick fan, then this is a must-see. But don't go in with expectations of another T-2.

7/10

As others have said, an all-round excellent movie. From the available film evidence accumulated over the past century or so, it seems to be extremely hard to make a sci-fi movie that doesn't come across as shallow and unbelievable, perhaps because we have trouble relating to fantastic situations portrayed on screen. However, X-2 succeeds admirably in these respects, delivering a deep, compelling and all-too-familiar story of mistrust and fear between two alienated groups of humans. The result is a considerable improvement over the (already good) first movie.

The one caveat is that if you haven't seen the first movie then much of what happens here will not make sense. This dependency allows the film makers more freedom to develop story and spend less time introducing characters, but if you haven't seen X-1, go see it before you go see this one. You've been warned!

Fans of the comics will find much to like here as well, including an obvious (perhaps over-obvious) setup for a third installment involving what is probably the most famous story arc from the paper version. I won't say which to avoid spoiling your experience, but if you're a fan you can probably guess what I'm talking about anyway..

I'd give this a 9/10. In it's category it's pretty much right at the top, but you won't find anything here the redefines a genre, or that you will find yourself still puzzling over days after. It's "just" a great action story, executed extremely well. Go see it!

This is one of those movies that's difficult to review without giving away the plot. Suffice to say there are weird things and unexpected twists going on, beyond the initial superficial "Tom Cruise screws around with multiple women" plot.

The quality cast elevate this movie above the norm, and all the cast are well suited to their parts: Cruise as the irritatingly smug playboy who has it all - and then loses it all, Diaz as the attractive but slightly deranged jilted lover, Cruz as the exotic new girl on the scene and Russell as the fatherly psychologist. The story involves elements of romance, morality, murder-mystery, suspense and sci-fi and is generally an entertaining trip.

I should add that the photography is also uniformly excellent and the insertion of various visual metaphors is beautiful once you realize what's going on.

If you enjoy well-acted movies with twists and suspense, and are prepared to accept a slightly fantastic Philip K Dick style resolution, then this is a must-see.

9/10

If you judge a film by the degree to which it makes your mind spin for days afterwards, then Memento fully deserves its current top 10 spot at the IMDB. During the movie I was gripped by an incredible mixture of curiosity, frustration and confusion, empathizing with the lead character all the way. The chilling ending both wraps things up in one sense, and unleashes a flood of other questions, and it was days later before I could stop thinking about the movie constantly!

Others have commented that the film has poor sound, acting, whatever. Personally I think the low key feel is an essential part of the impact.

Few other films have affected me in the same way, and probably none of the others in the current top 10. Maybe the filmmakers took ideas from elsewhere, but the point is that they put them together beautifully. 10/10!

P.S. Having said all that I'm not in any hurry to watch it again - too emotionally draining...

I'm a big fan of the Coen brother's other work and so I was really looking forward to this movie. The rave reviews and the mysteriously low-key release schedule (here in the US anyway) just added to my enthusiasm. After sitting in the movie theater for a couple of hours with this film however I was just keen to leave. The story plods along in an admittedly odd but hardly riveting fashion, and, just like most of the supporting characters in the film, you don't really care what happens to the main character anymore. Making a movie about a complete non-entity with seemingly no interest in the world he lives in, may have seemed like an interesting concept, I guess, but it makes for pretty uninteresting watching.

Frankly if I wanted to watch a movie about a moron to whom weird things happen through no fault of his own, I'd probably go see Forrest Gump. Maybe...

I'm a big fan of sci-fi in general, but I always approach sci-fi films with a feeling of dread. Sci-fi is full of great ideas and concepts, but for whatever reason, the genre produces very few movies that excite the emotions and draw you in in the same way as the best non sci-fi movies.

Until this film that is.

Beautifully shot in a retro-futuristic style, Gattaca conveys hi-tech in an almost timeless way. Years from now this film will still seem futuristic while other attempts at depicting the future will have become completely laughable. The sepia-tinged film stock infuses the film with a warm yet ultra-stylish feel.

Add to that superb acting, a compelling story line and a serious message about genetic screening that looks more and more relevant every year, and you have one of the finest sci-fi stories ever put on the big screen.

Making a full-size book into a film is a huge challenge. When that book is as well-known and action-packed as Harry Potter et al, the challenge looks well-nigh impossible, and so my expectations for this film started out low. Then the reviews started to come in, along with claims that the film was miraculously not bad at all. My expectations shot up again. Foolish...

In brief, the film is nothing more or less than a very pretty condensed summary of the book. All the scenes are there, portrayed in loving detail, but all the character development and atmosphere of the book have been stripped away in the attempt to fit all the scenes in. Several of the actors, e.g. Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint do an excellent job, but most do not manage to develop any personality, including Daniel Radcliffe (Harry). The computer graphics are excellent IMHO although opinions vary.

In retrospect it would probably not have been possible to do much better with this without seriously altering the story. If you're a fan, you'll go and see it anyway, but don't, like me, get your hopes up...

The first series of Black Adder reminds me a lot of Monty Python films - full of hilarious moments but somehow not quite all there as a whole. I'm not a huge Bean fan and there's too much Bean here for my liking.

On the other hand, the second, third and fourth Blackadder series represent some of the best British comedy around (different script writer) and so the first series is worth watching just to introduce the characters. Watch this, but don't be put off the others if you don't like it!