Reviews

The good: The acting and characters are likeable. The film clips along at a nice pace with a staple (but endearing) underdog story. The racing/action segments are entertaining with some cool game graphic/effects thrown in to mix it up. I also appreciated the homage to the game itself and its creators (being a gamer myself). The (post film) connection to the real Jann and his story is the final cherry on top for how this movie respects the source material. Nice one GT.

The bad: Not enough time is spent on backstories and developing character motives. Whilst this would drag out the runtime (meaning something else would need to be sacrificed to keep the pace), a lot of the characters (especially minor ones) end up being 2D caricatures instead of well rounded, interesting sources of conflict or competition for the protagonist. The only thing that really tests the main character is completely unrelated to anyone else in the film. Fortunately, this was my only gripe.

Summary: I'm feeling more and more confident that the video game movie curse is finally lifting. Gran Turismo is an entertaining, high-quality racing/underdog movie that earns its audience rating, respects its source material and most certainly deserves an audience. Recommended.

The good: The start. A decent first act where we get into the action/premise at a good pace. Than it's all downhill from there.

The bad: Mediocre acting. 2-dimensional token stereotypes. Absolutely mind-numbingly awful character decisions that defy logic, common sense and obliterate any semblance of rational (or any) thought. Even the movie/plot doesn't follow its own logic. Though I'm probably the most illogical for having sat through it.

In summary: There's not much I can conjure up to recommend this. There are much better Christmas themed horror flicks out there. What kept me watching was the knowledge of the movie's short run time. I couldn't have watched any more scenes where the main characters explain profusely their requirement to kill the murderer, only to step over his/her body whilst the killer is unconscious. The stupidity happens frequently. Ugh. Pass.

The good: The visuals/cinematography. Typical Zynder theatrics make for a pleasing to the eye visual spectacle. I also appreciated that the worlds/planets feel bespoke, with their own theme and culture.

The bad: Everything else other than visuals is a misfire. The plot and pacing + promises with no payoffs. The first half is the worst for pacing. With exposition dumps and flashbacks galore. Add in frequent (Zynder) slow-mo + ultra slow-mo and the film feels like a slog-fest to just try and get through it. The back half of the film does pick up somewhat (with way less slow-mo), but it's a case of too little too late. And as predicted with a part 1/2 - the movie ends with no ending, and little in the way of actual narrative progression. Finally, the ease of which the (magnificent 7) heroes are recruited really bugged me. It was super easy, barely an inconvenience (thanks pitch meeting). It's hard to care for characters that have limited conviction and/or development. One scene (literally) in most cases, will not achieve this, no matter how good the actor. Though it's possible the characters are further fleshed out in the rumoured director's cut.

Should you watch it: If you like Zynder's visual prowess and don't mind watching a movie that is unapologetically derivative of the sci-fi western classics that came before it, than sure - you'll probably find something to like here. For the rest, probably not. Go watch Dune part 1 (same formula, better output). Rebel moon part 2 where I imagine the action/payoffs will be.

The good: The 2 leads play their roles well enough and are entertaining to watch. The movie clips along at a nice pace and whilst predictable, is entertaining from start to finish.

The bad: The dialogue / interactions between the protagonists is average - a missed opportunity with the 2 very capable actors. Whilst the action is ok, the editing is horrific. Especially during fight scenes. There are so many quick cuts and continuity issues it's nauseating (i.e., John Wick, this aint).

Should you watch it: Bastille Day / The Take is a solid action flick that is well paced and entertaining throughout it's 1.5hr runtime. A one-and-done only though.

The good: The movie has some interesting ideas and executes most of them satisfactorily. I was not confused with the plot / narrative and understood what was happening throughout. The effects were more hit than miss and I appreciated the inception vibes (more on that later). It's paced well and is interesting until the final credits roll.

The bad: The protagonist's actions got a bit muddled at the end and most of character's desires/goals are just explained in an exposition dump. Rendering most minor characters as 2 dimensional caricatures. There are also some shonky effects and editing in places, including some logical issues as well.

Should you watch it: If you like The Matrix or Inception, then yes you probably will enjoy this. The movie feels like these 2 films collided and the fractured pieces were then put together to create a slightly different beast that treads its own path. Overall, an enjoyable flick.

The good: The visuals, the cinematography and pacing of the first 2 acts is fantastic. You're really transported back to the swinging 60s - the care and technical prowess put into each frame is evident. And that dance number! - mostly done practical/in camera, I recommend watching the behind-the-scenes snippet. Sandie (Anya Taylor) is the standout performance, but all actors play their parts well.

The bad: I felt the theme, narrative and mystery built up in the first 2 acts didn't gel with the 3rd and final act. It's like 2 movies/genres suddenly collide in a clumsy transition. Also, some aspects (no spoilers) are left unresolved and actually end up contributing nothing to the overall narrative or characters.

Should you watch it: If you like Edgar Wright's work, then you'll probably enjoy this. While it's a visceral and in parts enchanting film, it's disjointed 3rd act and loose commitment to resolving story threads stop the movie from reaching true swinging 60s heights.

The good: Keanu (Neo) and Carrie-Anne (Trinity) are back! So, there's that. I did appreciate that the creators were trying to create a new entry in the franchise without dumping on what has come before it. But herein lies the problem...

The bad: The film treads the same paths from the original films (quite literally) - resulting in a trip that's totally unnecessary. It does not offer anything new or innovative when we know this can be done successfully (see Top Gun Maverick / Bladerunner 2049). Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. The choreography and cinematography are somehow worse than the previous films. The fight scenes are repetitive, uninventive and rely heavily on rapid cuts, with plot armour and convenient power manifestation being the cherries on top. And finally, there are wasted (new and legacy) characters who add little or nothing to the narrative. Existing solely because the filmmakers believe their mere presence will be sufficient to justify their existence. It does not, and they end up degrading the film instead of elevating it with their contribution to the unfolding story.

Should you watch it: I had low expectations going into this film - and I would say it met them. My biggest criticism is that the movie's contribution to the legacy of The Matrix is superfluous. Resurrections adds nothing new and repeats the same beats that came before it but delivered worse in every aspect. Fortunately, it doesn't destroy the Matrix-verse by it's existence, so watch it if only to satisfy your curiosity (like I did) or just watch the original Matrix again.

The good: The plot/promise is simple, but the movie does a lot with a little. The engaging performance of the lead coupled with a trickle feed of twists and turns help the movie clip along at a brisk pace considering the very limited set pieces. The movie doesn't try to subvert expectations of the genre and just plays to its strengths, based off its premise/hook.

The bad: The movie does broach some meaty subject matter but does absolutely nothing with it. I don't blame the creators but don't expect any poignant introspects into the human psyche. This movie plays it straight and narrow. I also have to call out some logic/plot holes which are obviously there to push the story forward (create conflict) but took me out of the film.

Should you watch it: Lately, I'm leaning more towards shorter movies as I dislike scenes that are superfluous and add nothing to the film but a bloated runtime. This is not one of those movies. At just over 1.5 hours the movie concludes satisfactorily and is a decent enough trip for those who are fans of the mystery/sci fi genre.

The good: The movie lives up to its hype and is an entertaining thrill ride with great set pieces, globe-trotting action and twists and turns galore. You know what this film is here to provide, so does Tom Cruise, and on that it delivers.

The bad: Specific sections let this film down, after an intriguing start, we get this hammy dialogue scene full of suits and characters that could be important but are never seen again. The film hasn't got the best pacing and is a tad too long. Also, whilst I applaud the film for trying to tackle the action in different ways (i.e. How many fight scenes can you see before it gets stale) thematic equivalents in other films (such as the bathroom fight scene in fallout) do it better. Finally, some of the characters are outright cartoony and others are given undeserved treatment. I'll say no more on this other than expressing disappointment in what could have been much more poignant delivery of a certain character's arc.

Should you watch it: It's a mission impossible movie. Tom Cruise once again puts his life on the line for our entertainment. And for that, it is absolutely worth the price of admission, should you choose to accept it.

The good: The tone, pacing and story beats strike a nice balance. There are genuinely funny scenes, moments of awe, and sadness. Despite Ezra's real-life troubles, here he comes across as a likeable, grounded and root-able character as The Flash. Whilst there are many side characters and each get their moment to shine - this is a movie about The Flash and to its credit the film never forgets that. Side note: Keaton's Batman has still got it - and The Flash respects the legacy of that batverse without trampling on it. Though I felt there was a missed opportunity to showcase some Batman Beyond/aged Batman struggles of the character. But I understand why they chose the path they did.

The bad: The plot conveniences annoyed me. I.e., Circumstances or events occurring because the plot demands it, not because it's earned or logical. This is at its worst when it sacrifices character in the name of plot. Without spoilers, an example is contrasting what powers each Flash/Barry reaches in their relative timeframes (seconds vs years). Another mark against the film is the overuse of CG, especially bad CG. For reasons unbeknownst to me, EVERY scene the 2 Barry's are in, they use a CG model for the 2nd Barry, whether the CG version is the focus or not. It's bizarre - Hollywood has been using basic composition techniques to put the same actor in 1 frame for decades. It wasn't necessary and hurts each moment the 2 Barry's are interacting closely.

Should you watch it: This is in the top tier of the DCEU. A shame we probably won't get to see these characters / actors anymore but glad the universe is going out on a high note. This is an entertaining comic-book popcorn movie that honours its comic predecessors and does a better job of establishing a Justice League than the Justice League movie. Recommended.

The good: Straight up just a solid 90s action film. It doesn't waste any time getting into the plot. The set up is simple, the logic/decisions aren't too bad that you're pulled out of the movie and all the actors play their part well. It runs at a brisk pace and only gets bogged down at the very end. Which leads me to... The bad: The ending lets it down for me. Major characters are impacted but the movie mostly ignores this to make sure we have the final confrontation mano-e-mano. It feels tact on and an appendix to the main narrative - which is watertight.

Should you watch it: Heck yes. If you like action movies, look no further. You can see Keanu's limited acting range, but it's fine in action movies - where he commits himself to the role, elevating the whole film with it.

The good: This is a gorgeous and competently made film. With every scene / direction / frame constructed meticulously and it shows. It pushes the boundaries of animated movies and does it with style. The voice acting is good. The movie respects and pays homage to spider-man lore whilst offering something fresh (hard to pull off). Almost all the side characters feel real and fleshed out - even those with minimal screen time.

The bad: It's most definitely a middle chapter and the film suffers for it. The movie is long, the pacing suffers, and scenes feel drawn out - which makes sense when you understand it's not trying to reach the end. The movie 'finishes' literally in the middle of a plot beat - when it didn't need to. Empire Strikes Back has shown us how it's done. It feels like pure marketing/money making tactics. A shame.

Should you watch it: If you like Into the Spider-Verse - most definitely. The film pays homage to spider-man (both on and off screen) while offering something new. It's also just a brilliantly made animated film. Highly recommended.

The good: The film is competently made, and the plot is intriguing enough (not original) to justify its existence. Unfortunately, the movie spoils the intrigue, plus characters, concept and plot, all by itself.

The bad: The rushed first act let's this film down tremendously. It needed to spend more time with the main characters, give the audience time to settle in, believe in and experience the journey with them - but no, it zips through the act and expects the audience to accept the relationship status whilst the remainder of the movie continues off this rushed foundation.

Should you watch it: If you like indie Sci-Fis that end with a satisfying conclusion - you'll enjoy this. A shame as there is a fantastic movie within the constructs that the filmmakers didn't capitalise on.

The Good: The acting is serviceable. There is excellent chemistry between the leads (Weisz and Craig) - and it really was real as Daniel Craig admits that for him only good thing to come out of this movie was meeting his future wife. The film also doesn't feel overdrawn, and the credits roll circa 1hr30mins.

The Bad: The trailer is the worst offender. If you can, avoid it, as it spoils (an extremely obvious) story pivot that ruins most of the mystery carrying this movie. The plot, editing, cinematography, dialogue - basically everything is extremely formulaic and executed only a year earlier in another film (which I will not mention to avoid spoilers). There is nothing new or envelope pushing here. It's a simple, straight-forward package that doesn't deviate.

Should you watch it: If you want a easy-to-follow mystery/thriller that has a low chance of offense, look here. For anyone else wanting more, look elsewhere.

The good: Solid action, good pacing and tongue-in-cheek but solid performances from the leads. The film clips along at a nice pace and does not overstay its welcome. There really aren't any unnecessary scenes, but some do fall into exposition heavy territory.

The bad: Mostly just some implausible action scenes fuelled by absolutely stupid decisions by the characters. Both antagonist and protagonists are guilty, and it really takes you out of the movie. This dumbness isn't necessary - Die Hard conquered it in the 80s. Intelligent heroes and villains do exist.

Should you watch it? If you're wanting a standard action flick that is fun, enjoyable and not too long. You've come to the right place.

The good: The actors (and supporting cast) are all fine in their roles, mostly all typecast to what you'd expect. Yeah that's about it.

The bad: Pretty much everything besides the well put together molecules that make up the main cast is a fail. My wife and I couldn't even make it all the way through. We got 3/4 of the way and just said to each other, why are we throwing our life away with this rubbish? And turned it off. It's not funny. The dialogue is terrible, jokes/scenes are way overplayed to the point where it looks like they were just trying to fill out the run time. Character decisions and actions are non sensical. Trying to hit on a chick repeatedly whilst you're being held hostage at gunpoint is not funny, it's just stupid. It actually reminded me of the lost city, a very similar movie on paper, but one that uses the talents of its cast better than this film.

Should you watch it: I do not recommend this. The Lost City (Bullock/Tatum) is a similar affair but is superior in every way. Save your time and life and watch that instead.

The good: The effects/make up is decent enough and the acting is passable. It's also not that long. So that's nice.

The bad: Basically everything else. This movie fell out of the horror tree and hit every cliche on the way down. Jock/annoying bro. Check. Disturbed girl with a gift. Check. Wimpy side characters who make terrible decisions. Check. Creepy girl giggling. Check. You get the picture. It has plot points that go nowhere. Story beats you can see a mile away and characters you care nothing for.

Should you watch it: I'd give this one a miss, it's not even laughably bad unfortunately (eg trolls 2). It's below average and brings nothing new to the table.

The good: The production is well done, with a decent mix of singing and speaking - with one not overstating the other. There's no outstanding musical number but all the songs are serviceable to the plot / characters. Props also for trying to do something different.

The bad: The film's muddled messaging and plot are probably what brought it down mostly for me. The film literally jumps between story and character threads making the film feel aimless and lacking a consistent arc. The movie drags in the third act with inorganic scenes popped from an SNL skit feeling tacked on to each other as the movie jumps to where the plot demands it be. It's also not that funny. You'd think with Ferrell and Reynolds there'd be some comedic gold. But really, it's just a couple of nice-looking rocks scattered throughout the film's 2 hour runtime.

Summary: You can see what the film/musical was trying to do. But the lacklustre singing numbers, excessive runtime and muddled messaging really hinder the film. It is an ok musical which tries hard to be 'spirited' but ends up lacking a soul. I've watched it once, and that's enough for me.

The good: The quality of the spoof itself. I was getting real naked gun vibes throughout. With characters/actors playing it completely straight whilst bonkers stuff is happening around them. The movie has a stellar first act - and doesn't overstay it's welcome, clipping along at a good pace (with some middle/late act dips, we'll get to that). Also, the actors appear to be having fun with the roles - which is always good to watch. Commentary from Weird Al suggested the budget was not high, so it's not a stretch to imagine a lot, if not most of the cast were not paid their normal rates.

The bad: The movie really started to sag when it decides to go off the rails completely in the middle/latter portion of the film. These scenes appear like a literal side quest. For me, it was the moment the film crumbled under its own parody weight. Maybe on further viewings it won't be so much of an abrupt turn - but it just didn't need to go there to maintain the quirkiness and humour. The movie was over-the-top and hilarious enough without being ludicrous. Example: My wife questioned a lot of the earlier scenes, asking if it was real or not - because it's JUST within the realm of possibility - but those latter scenes are obviously not and took us out of the movie, it went from parody to stupidity.

Should you watch it: If you like Weird Al, spoof/parody movies - than yes. It's a great ride. Harry P..I mean Daniel Radcliffe is fine in the role and the supporting cast + cameos are all excellent. It's a fun movie which is definitely good but could have been brilliant.

Pros: The cinematography is excellent and the Director (Guillermo Del Toro), is certainly a master of his craft. The film has a simple plot and is easy to follow, with well-acted leads and striking visuals. Unfortunately, these few positive attributes cannot carry a film to greatness.

Cons: A major con for me was the irrelevancy of some of the 'horror' elements. Even the main character in the opening scenes outlines one. They don't hide it - the ghosts aren't the focus; they just happen to be there. If you can totally gut elements from a movie and achieve the same plot and outcome, why are they there in the first place? This ends up making the ghosts not only physically ethereal, but thematically as well. A shame, and as a result the movie doesn't synergise well as a whole.

Should you watch it?: If you're really into Guillermo Del Toro's style of filmmaking, then you'll probably enjoy it. It doesn't offer anything new in the genre and the poor combination of different thematic elements results in an uneven and mediocre film. Not bad, not great, but okay.

The good: Action scenes are great and well choreographed. Definitely a stand-out and what elevated the entire experience to enjoyable. The exposition was layered in well and the film doesn't overstay it's welcome.

The bad: The movie is paper thin - there seem to be some big ideas under the surface but it never explores it. The film stays absolutely on the surface and uses up all the vampire troupes without exploring any of them past a quick quip or two. Some characters have big intros and beyond one set piece, are never seen or heard from again. However my biggest gripe is the tone. The film is full of death and gore but the characters just joke around it. If the characters don't take death or injury seriously, then why should we, the viewer, care if they're in danger? It undermines the entire potency of the film. To explain my meaning, compare Whistler in Blade - his 'redacted' scene is treated as a big moment and it affects Blade significantly. In this film? Quip time!

Should you watch it? For me, it's a one and done. But I definitely enjoyed the ride. The action and effects are great, the acting is decent and it ticks almost all the 'vampire movie' boxes. If you like this genre, you'll probably like this too.

The good: Cinematography, action, sound, characters and their actors are all top shelf - flawless execution. The plot is simple but serves the film well - which leads me to my highest praise - the pacing. Weird, I know, but I was expecting the other parts to be amazing (and they were) but the pacing was incredible. The movie ebbs and flows with natural highs, lows and moments of tension and brevity right up until the end. Nailed it.

The bad: 2 things (and it's light criticism). 1-the romance was lukewarm. Whilst it didn't grate me - it didn't have much purpose beyond being 2 people going all googly eyes at each other. It didn't overstay it's welcome but did very little for the movie - it could have been removed and (except for maybe one scene) you wouldn't have noticed. 2-Too much Tom Cruise (i know, the film is called 'Maverick') but the film puts him as the saviour a bit too much IMO. They could have altered some events to let the new recruits shine a bit more - whilst still giving Tom plenty of opportunity to kick ass.

Should you watch it: Absolutely. It's big, it's fun and it delivers on it's promise of pure blockbuster cinema that can be enjoyed by a wide ranging audience. See it on the biggest screen possible. Highly recommended.

The good: The film in of itself, is well made - everything from cinematography to lighting, sound, action, pacing etc. Big props for that. And of course the acting from the leads (including the younger actors) is excellent. I also like the way the 'passing of the torch' is shot - clearly defined parallels are drawn that make it easy to see the directors vision.

The bad: Probably it's biggest criticism is just how close it is to the 1st part. Whilst containing less of what made the first one special. This film is definitely more action - so it's not a complete replica, but the story beats and plotting are basically the same - hide from aliens, get supplies, escape from or stop aliens, : rinse and repeat.

Should you watch it: If you like the first one, absolutely. It's a well constructed film that moves at a quick pace (almost over too quickly). A solid horror action flick. Recommended.

The Good: Decent action scenes, though editing and direction of the action scenes is only serviceable. The acting from the leads is good enough. No standouts.

The Bad: Pretty much everything else. The film has conflicting ideologies and doesn't tell a coherent story. Characters make poor decisions with a protagonist who is annoyignly passive for most of the movie. Logic and reason take a backseat for most of the runtime - e.g. 56,000 combat hours says the main character, with 3 years of service, really?! He obviously failed maths.

Should you watch it: If you want a run-of-the-mill sci-fi action flick (that does very little with it's sci-fi premise), then sure - leave your brain at the door and give it a whirl. Unfortunate, as the movie had potential, but many films do better with the premise (and the budget) than this one.

The good: The special effects are decent, the script bounces along nicely, it doesn't take itself too seriously and you get to see full Kong pretty early on - the films knows HE is who you came to see.

The bad: Not much to say really, it can only really be as good as the sum of its parts, and it's a movie about a giant gorilla fighting other giant monsters (and human egoes). The characters are pretty 2 dimensional and Sam L Jackson plays his usual shtick. When John E. Riley is the (comedy) character with most depth and range....the other players probably need some work.

Should you watch it?: If you want a fun monster movie that runs a quick pace and doesn't take itself too seriously - you've come to the right place. Sit back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy the ride!