Reviews

After the 5/10's for Rear Window & North by Northwest, and the 6/10 for Vertigo, I've now done another middling Hitchcock which curiously has a very high IMDB rating.

I guess I just don't see the appeal. Dial M isn't a bad film: it has a neat setup, nicely (if somewhat formally) played by the actors and the ensuing puzzle-solving is watchable enough. But I never felt particularly interested or immersed. It's all quite stagey and detached. Also, the murder scene is very dated...tho' this can be forgiven as a product of its time.

I watched the 3D Bluray, which has artificial depth and a couple of standout popout moments, involving hands. Those scenes were so effective they had me instinctively reaching my own hand out to touch them.

So on the celebrated Director, I do rate Psycho & The Birds...but my search for a third Hitchcock I actually like goes on...

...maybe I won't give up quite yet. Lifeboat, Marnie and The Wrong Man remain on my watchlist.

This is the third Kurosawa I've seen after Rashomon (6/10) and Seven Samurai (7/10) and it may be the last, at least from his samurai genre. The films are good...not great.

Where Kurosawa's slapstick tone worked with Rashomon & Seven Samurai, it seems out of place here. Ran feels like it should be a dark brooding epic, farcical slapstick ill-serves that vibe. It also has too-theatrical acting from the main character (Hidetora): while he is highly-watchable, the performance does venture into the scenery-chewing absurd at times.

The contrast with the relative monotone from most of the other characters is an uneasy one.

Then there's the typical grunt-barking aggressive japanese dialogue-delivery...it gets tiresome after a while, all the characters sounding alike. The content of that dialogue is often too simplistic, so that the characters aren't able to convincingly sell the premise. The situation far too easily spirals out of control.

Consequence of such being: unlike Seven Samurai, I never felt like I cared for any of these characters or what was going to happen.

Another disappointing aspect is the small feel of the production when compared to english-language epics like Ben Hur, Spartacus, Excalibur, Lawrence of Arabia etc. Despite the big budget, large cast, costumes, castles & landscapes the movie-experience somehow doesn't feel totally 'sweeping' like those other Epic films...maybe because the setting & timespan were restrained to one small area and a short period. Action-wise it's also not that impressive, there's not even any notable one-on-one fights. The gory deaths often look comical rather than dramatic.

With all that out of the way, what was good about Ran? The lauded cinematography is impressive, there are some great shots...after the hour mark there is an extended almost-operatic battle-scene with a gorgeous string-heavy score washing over it. Best scene in the movie. Generally, I appreciated the striking appearance of Hidetora. Lady Kaeda is an intriguingly-vampiric character, well-written and performed. The soundtrack throughout is very nice. The film generally was watchable and fairly entertaining, it didn't drag or get boring.

But is it worth watching? To be worth watching, to be worth seeking out and spending precious hours on, requires a minimum 6/10 in my book. I feel like Ran earns that. But it certainly has issues.

Recommended if you accept there's gonna be that Kurosawa-brand of slapstick-farce amongst the serious stuff.

Incidentally I recently saw Harakiri (8/10) which stimulated me more than the three Kurosawas I've seen. So my focus on that particular style of film-making will be from those less talked about directors. Kwaidan & Onibaba are the next two on my watchlist.

I have no skin in this game: not interested in how it compares to the anime classic, nor do I care for the manufactured 'race controversy'. I'm just interested in watching an entertaining and visually-interesting 3D sci-fi action movie. Bonus points if things get deep & mysterious!

While Ghost in the Shell didn't scratch much deeper than the surface, and while its mysteries were resolved in a simple (yet satisfactory) manner, this movie did scratch that itch in 3D eye-candy! One of the best showcases for this medium. I watched the Bluray in my Meta Quest 3 headset, the screen - extremely curved - filling more than my entire field-of-view...mega immersive! Excellent depth.

Overall an entertaining, engaging & fun 110 minutes. The action was good, Scarlet is a convincing hero (tho' a little monotone, character-wise). The plot is fine. Soundtrack nice. Support cast mostly decent, except Juliette Binoche feels miscast and the villain (the actual villain) is blandly predictable. Generally the philosophical ideas it has are tropes at this stage, and the film didn't approach them at a unique or interesting enough angle to truly stand out.

What pushes this to an 8/10 however are a couple of strong scenes which hint at philosophical depths potential sequels could flesh out. One involving a 'possessed' trucker's inability to remember his daughter is particularly haunting.

If you dial down your expectations, ignore external criticisms you may have heard and choose the 3D version on as big a screen as possible...then for sure you'll enjoy this! Superior to the similar Battle Angel Alita I saw recently.

The best action sci-fi flicks have a (relatively) original concept that they utilise to the max. Terminator had time-travelling cyborg killers, Star Wars had 'the Force', the Avengers movies their movie-spanning arcs, Aliens/Predator their unique antagonists, Edge of Tomorrow the 'Groundhog Day' angle, The Matrix had...the matrix. And so on.

Dredd might have joined this elite group had it put more thought into how to make the film about the slow-mo effect itself: all the cool creative ways it can be used to drive the story (both from antagonists and heroes). Alas...all it's used for is some stylish FX-scenery, some of it pretty dandy...other times the FX have already dated (clearly-digital spurts of blood don't cut it in 2024).

So we're left with a standard setup plot-device of surviving and/or raiding a locked-down building. There's not too much sci-fi going on outside the slow-mo. We've got gangster-warfare clichés and a pair of miscast Judges leading us along to a corny 90's-sounding score. Characterisation generally is very thin, as is the dialogue.

But once we accept that this movie isn't gonna be a great, we can accept it for what it is: a fun dumb action thriller with nice pace, watchable villain, some entertaining deaths and satisfying gunplay.

For doing what's expected, no more no less, it deserves a decent 7/10.

...one of the most boring films I've ever struggled through. Boring story, boring dialogue, boring camera, boring acting. Even the acts of violence are oddly boring. There's a severe lack of energy in every part of the movie.

I'm amazed this has a 7.6 on here. It's terrible. Al Pacino seems to be playing a different character to the Michael Corleone we knew in the first two films....so different that '16 years later' can't quite explain it.

After 40-odd minutes I had to start skipping forward...3 hours of this is unbearable. Reminds me of 1963's The Leopard or 1981's Prince of the City...similarly highly-rated but I found to be soul-crushingly boring.

Gets a point for providing Sopranos with a memorable meme ("just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in!"). Michael's silent scream at the end was pretty good too, only the scene that immediately preceded it was laughable.

It's frankly best to ignore Part III entirely. Parts I & II tell a fine story without the need for a clumsy out-of-character epilogue.

I first saw The Godfather around 25 years ago, long before I became a film buff. I thought it was good, not great. When registering on IMDB a decade ago I rated it a 7/10 from memory. Incidentally part II I rated a little higher, an 8/10 due to the engaging flashbacks.

Ten years of being a film buff...I've seen some incredible works in that time (including two Coppolas, namely his Apocalypse Now & Dracula). Curious if The Godfathers are as good as their 9.2/9.0 ratings on here, I purchased the Bluray-Restoration Trilogy and just now watched the 3-hour first movie...only my second watch, and the first time since 25 years or so.

....and my opinion is unchanged! The Godfather is a good film. It's very well made, with tons of neat intelligent scenes and dialogue. Well acted. Fitting music. Decent camera work. But it's also tricky to follow, a few times I wondered who characters were referencing...this isn't a problem I've had with Goodfellas or Sopranos. Michael's relationship drama with his two wives isn't really that compelling, and neither is the paranoid mob war. The motives of the antagonist mobsters don't feel convincing.

A couple of action scenes have dated badly. One scene has Sonny punching clear air but the sound effects are claiming contact. Tho' the death scenes were generally done well and still look good today.

Curiously, there's often no offered subtitles when the characters talk in Italian. Specifically an important restaurant scene is missing this. I later watched an online clip with the translation, and I disagree with Copolla: the subs should've stayed in. Also, the image-quality isn't that impressive for a claimed 4k-mastering restoration. Very deep blacks for indoor scenes, meaning you struggle to differentiate among all those black suits. I guess they were going for a chiaroscuro-style (like Caravaggio famously employed in his paintings), so this gets a pass.

7/10 feels absolutely fair. Yet poll after poll still puts this movie right at the top (or very close) in the all-time rankings.

Citizen Kane is one of those I feel deserves such a reputation. The Godfather...not so much.

Part II next. Let's see if it holds its 8/10 (hopefully improves on it!).

This movie is so full of tropes it's hard to get engaged:

• mysterious character with no memory of badass past mixed with manic pixie dream girl.

• kindly older father figure played by well-known character actor guiding said character.

• committee-pleasing diverse gang of characters so underdeveloped nobody remembers their names or what happened to them.

• rich city in the sky that the folk below aspire to.

• mass garbage dumps.

• talk of a catastrophic event long ago which ruined the planet.

• cyborgs with human heads (very Robocop-aesthetic).

• bad guys who maniacally laugh while hunting their prey.

• Murderball variant.

• mysterious 'Big Bad' who eventually reveals his face to be...a famous actor.

Then there's the substandard dialogue, phoned-in acting, messy uninvolving plot and flat CGI (even in 3D, that world just looked flat...like a background matte painting). The much-vaunted Alita-character CGI was too uncanny valley, looking less like a cyborg in real life and more like a Final Fantasy character in a cut-scene.

To add insult to injury, there's no ending. It just ends in the middle of the story...presuming itself to offer a sequel. Risky game to play...tho' it may still come. But will there be interest in it several years later?

I still score an ok 5/10 as despite all these flaws it was fairly watchable, some action was decent. Nothing was really outright poor. It's comparable to Mortal Engines: very similar quality & feel (even sharing the garbage dump trope), tho' Mortal Engines scores slightly higher by its interesting roaming-cities designs.

I can't really recommend Alita. It even lacks the bite & originality of japanese anime so I'm not sure who the audience for this is supposed to be.

After the watchable but not particularly worth watching Godzilla 2014, Skull Island and the series stinker King of the Monsters I would normally not even bother with a series fourth, but already had this on 3D-Bluray so felt obligated...and turns out it's the best by a mile!

It does everything better:

• monster fights are numerous but not too many so you never get fatigued. Also clear, bright, had motive, dramatic and easy to follow.

• human element are the most engaging cast of characters in the series (which isn't saying much, but still).

• plot made sense (relatively-speaking, it is a giant monster movie).

• some fantastic, if scientifically-nonsensical, ideas like the Hollow Earth...visually very nicely realised.

• 3D also the best in the series: great depth.

• did I mention the monster fights were brightly-lit, satisfyingly-crunchy and easy to follow?

A movie of this bombastic subgenre is unlikely to trouble my Top 100, but Godzilla vs Kong feels as good as something like this can get. I've yet to see the recent critically-acclaimed japanese efforts Shin Godzilla & Minus One....the classics are far too dated for me personally. I did enjoy Peter Jackson's King Kong over a decade ago (due a rewatch). From a narrative perspective that's still the best Kong/Godzilla film out there.

But for pure action, Godzilla vs Kong is the King.

Superior to the 1997 version as the sharp black humour is more welcome than titillating lewdness or graphic violence. Not to say the Jeremy Irons one is a poor effort, it's pretty good. This 1962 effort however has more to say, and makes more of an impression.

Offsetting the sometimes edgy yet always welcome comedy is a sense of risque danger which most men I'm sure have experienced.

First-class performances from all. James Mason manages to be debonair and pathetic at the same time...quite a feat! Sue Lyon is very effective, and correctly cast (the book Lolita at just 12 years of age really would've made viewing impossibly-uncomfortable). At first I felt Sellers was jarringly-clownish but when his character's role became clear I was able to accept his take.

Lolita is the kind of rare film one still thinks about days after. Lust can be a curious thing. If we let it, lust can be the main driver of our lives...for better or worse.

I tried to read the book but struggled with Nabokov's style, finding it too conversational and meta. Gave up after a few dozen pages. So for me, Kubrick's Lolita is the definitive telling.

The Endless is a modest slowburning mystery sci-fi, there isn't really much horror. The low-budget is apparent but not gallingly so, the crew make the best of what they've got. Performances are competent. It reminds me of Primer.

The theorising from the characters as to what the mystery could be is interesting. We see some tastefully-done scenes which feel inspired from 'Twilight Zone' type mysteries.

However, what's missing is a weighty revelation. While some attempts are made it doesn't really land, leaving the entire experience a bit lightweight and inconsequential.

Still, overall this was an enjoyable stimulating trip. Just don't expect anything mindblowing.

I normally don't watch films rated less than a 5.0 on IMDB, here I made an exception as I'm collecting 3D Blurays and am partial myself to psychonauting.

While the 3D had a couple of fun popouts, it wasn't the main draw (depth being almost non-existent). The psychedelic-trip aspect was also barely explored, at least in a visual or audio sense. The film starts poorly, with basic stilted dialogue, bland or even unlikeable characters, and poor overdubbing even in original German language...the actors clearly in sound booths. We get the usual 'dumb illogical protagonists' fare for these types of slasher movies, tho' this is partly explained by the 'tripping'. The action & tension was ok, a couple of cheap 'false-alarm' jump-scares weren't needed...loud orchestral-hits to startle the viewer is a bit of a copout.

Mostly middling entertainment, with 5 minutes remaining I was ready to give it a 4/10. But the last scene was great! Not just from a narrative perspective, the camera was also - for the first time - dynamic & interesting, showing us the crucial narrative development before telling us it more bluntly. Very effective.

With more naturalistic overdubbing, better script and more experimental use of visual/audio, One Way Trip may have had the potential to be a bit of a 'Geheimtipp' classic.

As it is, it's still worth watching. Dial your expectations down and you may also agree it's worth more than a 4.6 (current IMDB score).

A few days ago I watched and enjoyed 1967's Viy. It had an authentic setting, some cool camera techniques, memorable characters and scenes. While some of it has dated, and is a bit tonally inconsistent, it's well worth the 7/10. Recommended for those interested in vintage horror films (must watch in original language, with subs).

Curious about the 3D modern remake, I had to check 2014's Viy out. Oh dear....

It is so clumsily made that it shouldn't have gotten released: poor dubbing (recalls those old Italian giallo productions), plot-mess, broken FX, amateur-editing. I've seen student films better edited and dubbed than this. The setting, costumes & makeup are inauthentic drama-school stuff. Script is just awful. Humour lame, thrills nay. The ending is total rubbish.

The actors try their best, but the rest of the film-making is so terrible that there's nothing more they can do. And what on Earth is Charles Dance doing on a mess like this? As it seems he appears in the sequel - which has an even lower IMDB score than this one, and unfathomably had an even bigger budget ($48m as opposed to $26m) - we can only guess what his motivations were...

Viy 2014 should've gone the 1967 route: just Russian/Ukranian cast, with perfectly-synchronised native dubbing, so we can at least get a feel for the characters.

A 1/10 candidate...except in 3D there's a few minutes of CGI creature fun: halfway through the film there's an imaginative fantasy-horror section, which actually looked quite neat in 3D. I guess they blew their CGI-budget on those few minutes, as we don't get anymore after that except right at the end with an impressive creature popout.

So gets two points for that bit of fun. Otherwise, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

The sequel is very similar to the 1986 flick in that it has the same strengths & weaknesses, however with the welcome difference in that its strengths are even better executed, and go on for longer...while its weaknesses are less jarring, and shorter!

The love angle this time is totally tacked on and almost entirely pointless, and it's played so anemically by both leads that we almost miss that graphic tongue-kissing from the first one (almost!). Furthermore, Jennifer Connelly's character is superbland. At least Kelly McGillis's Charlie had some 'character'. Thankfully these scenes are relatively short.

The personal-drama and camaraderie stuff is standard predictable fare we've seen a thousand times in other movies. Quietly effective at best, eye-rollingly simple at worst. It does pay to have seen the first Top Gun, to at least appreciate the more effective elements.

Now on to the good stuff, and the main reason we all watch this movie: the flight action! And it's even better than the first film. It's easier to follow, takes up more runtime, feels ambitious, well-shot & great sound. The main mission is clearly described & understood, so we really feel the tension as the team attempt it! The only negative I have is the usual for modern action films: the editor cuts too quick, we have hundreds of great shots but they're barely a second long...not enough time to really saviour the grand achievements of the camera crew.

The plot is good, and it ends well. Overall 8/10, superior to the 6/10 for 1986's Top Gun.

Watch Maverick on as big a screen as possible! I used the Meta Quest 3 headset, filling my entire field-of-view with the action (while zooming out for the other stuff). Highly-recommended, albeit rather solitary, way of watching movies.

6/10 is the minimum score I deem a film to be 'worth watching'. Top Gun 1 i only watched as a warm-up to Maverick, which looks to be a superior film (will soon find out).

The first one has a poor love story, so cheesy and not in a fun charming way. The rest of the non-action drama is standard hokey fare. What makes the movie worth your time is the jet action: visceral camera, bombastic sound, clever editing. I watched the 3D-Bluray, the added depth worked well in those scenes. Felt quite immersive.

The cast are fine, they do what they can with the script. Tho' there's not really a convincing chemistry between the two romantic leads. Plot-wise, it's unclear who the antagonists are supposed to be, and why.

So the only reason to watch Top Gun 1 is for the flight action, and as a presumably-necessary prelude to the celebrated sequel.

I have the modern Viy on 3D Bluray but before checking it out I first watched the 60's original. It's good!

The best thing about 1967's Viy is how authentic the characters come across: that pre-Industrial revolution setting, the earthy moment-dwelling nature of the peoples. One scene involving worn bosom-generous ladies singing for the dead felt quite real. Naturally, such films must be watched in original language with subtitles.

The humour is hit-'n-miss, tho' even for an outsider I chuckled at a couple of scenes. While not scary, there is one impressive scene which can be the stuff of nightmares: a witch itching to get into your protective circle can do that! The finale is both silly and disturbing, like one of those old spooky Doctor Who stories. Cast are all great, camera work is pretty nice, some inventive stuff (for the time and place), music is fine.

A fun watch, tho' quite dated. Personally I think I'd have preferred a more serious tone, and more subtle (or at least more dimly-lit) finale.

Next: the 2014 version filmed in 3D. I also have the later Gogol trilogy from director Baranov, of which I believe one chapter is Viy. Tho' might be a while until I get round to them.

Harakiri is the fourth classic-Japanese film I've seen, after Samurai 1 Musashi, Rashomon, Seven Samurai. It is comfortably my favourite as unlike the others it hasn't noticably dated nor has any clear flaws.

The glacial pace doesn't drag as we're treated to a near-constant stream of visually-striking compositions, a photographer's film! The black-n-white is quite beautiful, with just the right amount of contrast (I recommend the Bluray, for optimal dynamic range).

What the camera does is one thing, a good film still needs a compelling narrative, and we get that too. The first half-hour is a little confusing, but once the story finds its groove (or rather, once the viewer has 'tuned in') then it's quite gripping. We want to know what Tsugumo's game is...

The most impressive accomplishment of the narrative is how it puts its main message across, regarding bushido. I won't explicitly state that message here, as first-time viewers should experience it within the film. It's an impressive ending.

The cast are all decent, music totally sparse yet effective. Subtitles were fine, clear & concise. The action is mostly quite good (for an early-60's flick) tho' there was one sword-swipe which clearly missed its mark despite the victim falling prey to it. Forgiveable, given the age of the film...and understandable, given the actors used real swords! The sets and setting feel authentic, tho' lacking a little in variety. While the slow pacing and precise dialogue isn't an issue, it does make Harakiri a 'watch-when-in-the-mood' type film...not one to put on at any time.

Overall a strong 8/10. The first classic-japanese to get that score. I already enjoy anime & horror from Japan-cinema (Akira, Grave of the Fireflies & The Grudge are probably my top 3 japanese films)...I wasn't sure if the 50's/60's stuff was for me. Now with Harakiri I'm beginning to see the appeal. On account of this strong showing the next film of this ilk will be from the same director: either Kwaidan or deep dive into his Human Condition trilogy.

Sam Neill has quite the CV for Lovecraftian horror: Possession, Event Horizon, this one...plus he played an older Damien in The Omen films. At a stretch even the Jurassic Park movies can be somewhat Lovecraftian.

He does well here: playing the straight serious man who can't quite believe what is unfolding around him. And what is unfolding is very watchable from the viewer's perspective: dark hypnotic secrets, trippy illogical scenes, unknowable monsters. FX are fairly modest but have aged quite well. Consistent pacing. Performances from all really good. Ending is satisfying.

One of the stronger Carpenter films. Highly-recommended if you also enjoy his other works, or enjoy Lovecraft vibes. Might be a bit too esoteric for modern horror watchers.

Further Lovecraft recommendation: check out 2001's Dagon (7/10). Little-known modest effort, despite B-movie vibes it's a good watch, like In The Mouth Of Madness also faithful to that particular brand of horror vibe. There's also the more modern and less directly-Lovecraft The Void, Banshee Chapter & Underwater, they're a little more flawed (6/10 each). Still decent enough.

I was intrigued by the character of Salomé from 1961's King of Kings (played with witchy brilliance by Brigid Bazlen). I started searching for films that might have her as a main character, as there's potential anti-heroine material there. And lo, I find Ken Russell did one! He directed one of my all-time favourites in Altered States, and also the very good Gothic. The Devils I haven't seen yet but will do soon.

...unfortunately, turns out his Salomé movie isn't a movie at all. It's a filmed play...very theatrical, silly and utterly camp. Not what I was looking for. There's a single set, and over-the-top performances and costumes. Salomé herself is played enthusiastically by the vixenesque Imogen Millais-Scott but her performance (as well as all the performances from the cast) lack that realistic historical-bite of a King of Kings type of production. That's not really a criticism as Salome's Last Dance is intended to play like that...it's just not for me.

Interesting aside: both actresses who played Salomé (this & King of Kings) barely did anything else and retired from the acting game soon after. A cursed role?

As it is, I can't rate Salome's Last Dance as I ended up skipping forward. Unwatchable burlesque high-camp theatre, not even particularly erotic. Maybe interesting for those who enjoy things like Rocky Horror Picture Show. Or for fans of Ken Russell's more campy stuff, or Wilde readers looking for off-beat interpretations.

While not a 23-believer, I do appreciate how prevalent that number can be if one begins to focus on it. When Walter names big news events related to 23, he neglected to mention the biggest one: 9/11/2001. Add those numbers together...

Stephen King pulled off a similar trick in his Dark Tower books with the number 19. Confirmation bias...tho' some numbers are better at it than others.

If you also have a passing interest (or even unhealthy obsession) in such things this film is worth watching. It handles the mania - and the uncanny coincidences - quite well, and hides many 'easter eggs' for those wanting to hunt the number.

The plot is pretty good: decent sense of build-up & mystery, with a plot-resolution that makes sense. However the execution is very hokey, feels like a parody of noir at times. And Jim Carrey frankly is miscast...he just doesn't convince in such a role. Virginia Madsen also, there's no real chemistry between them.

Only recommendable to those interested in 23...

Note to Timothy Leary readers: a professor character in the film is called Sirius Leary. R. U. Sirius (a pseudonym) was a foreworder and part-ghostwriter for Leary's later years.

The story of Jesus is probably the most famous story of all time. This telling of it doesn't do anything original, unlike say 1953's The Robe. But originality doesn't necessarily mean quality. The Robe is worth watching because of these interesting ideas despite its flaws, whereas King of Kings is worth watching despite its unoriginality.

What this 1961 does do is provide 3 hours of consistent solid engaging story-telling, of a tale we all already know. The dialogue is stiff, as if we're reading the Bible out loud, however it fits the atmosphere. The conservative seriousness doesn't get tiring as the camera & production does fine dynamic work, keeping us immersed.

The cast are all decent. Jeffrey Hunter as the blue-eyed wonder does well to imbue a sense of aura around his character. The teenage Brigid Bazlen is incredible as Salomé, delivering the film's outstanding scene. A dark uncontrollable irresistible witchy presence. I'm quite sure at least one japanese horror director has seen her sitting before the throne after the dance and thought "I'm gonna make my demonic ghost look like that".

King of Kings doesn't quite hit the heights of more famous epics like Ben Hur, Spartacus - or my personal favourite John Huston's The Bible - as it's a bit too 'safe'. And despite being Jesus-focussed we don't get too much detail or insight into his or his disciples lives.

Still, there's no real flaws in this effort. Well worth watching if you're in the mood for one of those old biblical epics, it will satisfy that itch.

This is my fourth Kusturica after the excellent Underground (9/10), very good Black Cat White Cat (8/10) and the fine Time of the Gypsies (7/10).

Those three all had something extra special going on beside the trademark imaginative eccentric direction of Kusturica films: Underground had an epic immersive narrative, BCWC an intense (quasi)antagonist, Gypsies a gorgeous outstanding song in Ederlezi. They all had expert acting, quality soundtracks and a lively energy.

On The Milky Road lacks that extra special something. The acting is only so-so (Emir himself feels miscast in the main role) and the soundtrack is merely ok rather than great. Energy is also lacking, which can't quite be explained away by the more advanced age of the protagonists. Some scenes just happen, the edits are clumsy. There's no feeling of suspense despite the later chase scene. Even the 'magic-realism' is a little underwhelming. While the ideas are good, the execution - or rather the direction of them - is lacklustre. Maybe because for most of the film the director was on the wrong side of the camera?

It's not all bad. The first half especially has a handful of nicely filmed scenes of village life, some fun eccentric ideas (that mad clock!), animal scenes are very good (except the later snake appearance betraying obvious CGI). The second half has some fine landscape shots. Humour is hit 'n miss.

For Kusturica completists it's worth watching. I've collected his other works and will get round to them eventually. Certainly a very original and imaginative film-maker. However, I'm not sure there's enough going on here to recommend On The Milky Road to anyone else.

Guardians is the strongest most consistent trilogy of the MCU, with ratings of 9, 9 & 8. It had the potential to match the original Star Wars trilogy for absolute quality but slightly fumbled the ball at vol. 3.

The Rick & Morty-style sci-fi that we had hints of in the first two are given full bloom in the third film. Not a negative, necessarily: that style of humour and irreverent science fiction is very fun to watch. But that means we also don't go deep into a sense of high-stakes threat or intriguing mystery (something which Infinity War did so well). While I appreciated Rocket's backstory, and his friends' attempts to save him, this story didn't fire the imagination like the first two Guardians movies did. The plot's developments were also more predictable than the first two: a few times I correctly guessed the next scene...

Vol. 3 generally felt a bit more kids-friendly, what with all the animals, cute aliens and children (indeed, Return of the Jedi did something similar by introducing Ewoks and going overboard with puppet-aliens...a now oft-criticised move).

The cast are all on top form, as always. Tho' it's frustrating from a viewer perspective that this Gamora has to reset her relationships with everyone...it was however as neatly done as can be expected. The antagonist is played expertly by Chukwudi, but his performance can't quite save the not-credible character of the High Evolutionary, a clumsily-scripted and underwhelmingly-directed Big Bad. Ego, and even Ronan, were a bit more compelling overall.

The music, such an addictively-strong part of the first two films, doesn't quite hit the same way. Song choices seem uninspired, the production (the sound) of said songs clashes with what's on screen, rather than complements...

...as a certain character mused, the soundtrack sorely needed some King Crimson, specifically Belew-era. That bit of edge, a bit of that experimental avant-garde; while still sounding pop, fresh & mainstream. Come to think of it, the story could've done with a bit of King Crimson too.

If my review sounds a little harsh, it's only because after two strong 9/10's, and being aware of rave reviews for the third one, I was expecting something really epic. Vol. 3 still deserves the 8/10 as despite going the easy route and going 'for the feels', those feels worked...even if they were predictable. The jokes landed fine, a couple genuinely laugh-out-loud funny! There's some outstanding action & FX (one single-take battle scene near the end is particularly noteworthy). The whole package is very fine fun entertainment, a worthy end to the trilogy as long as expectations are dialled down a little...

...it's just not quite as good as the first two.

I'm not into the Multiverse arc as when writers go down that route it means they can't think of anything creative or original within the confines of our own universe (which is already quite limitless).

So we get the Multiverse arc, with the usual doppelgängers of familiar characters in their copy-Earths. It all feels quite small, to be honest. We don't even get an original villain or particularly interesting new characters/species/worlds. Certainly nothing with any depth.

The plot is total nonsense. The motivations of the villain and the deus ex machinas are so blatantly contrived. Yet....

...yet despite these significant issues the movie-experience succeeds in being entertaining & fun. It's a horror-lite action piece, like if Evil Dead had a PG-certificate. I wish the producers allowed an actual 18-rated fantasy-horror, or at least 15. The PG-rated stuff we do get however is very well made, there's a bunch of fantastic imagery, exciting pacing, and Liz Olsen - despite her character's questionable motivations, and physically petite frame - manages a magnetic threatening screen presence. Very stylish rather than scary, mind. Shades of Terminator, Apocalypse from X-Men, and even Carrie through to Ultimecia, combine to make a memorable villain. A shame that the plot-resolution is a cheap unimaginative comedown after all that build-up.

Also fine work from the rest of the cast. They all manage to sell us this frankly ridiculous story.

Despite the 8/10, it does feel like the MCU quality is on an inconsistent downward trend from the strong stuff we got in Phases 2 & 3. From Phase 4 I've only watched Shang-Chi (good) & Spider-Man 3 (meh) so far. Not bothering with any more Marvel except Guardians 3. It's been a mostly fun ride since starting with Iron Man 1 back in November, and has been rewarded with a very rare 10/10 in Infinity War. So overall the Infinity Saga is well worth watching in full. The Multiverse Saga? Not really feeling it. And judging by reviews very few of these movies are worth checking out as standalones. Doctor Strange 2 however is highly-recommended for fans of the first one, tho' turn brain off to enjoy more :)

Let's see if Guardians 3 will be a quality farewell to the Marvel universe(s).