Reviews

'HAPPY DEATH DAY' - 2017

Directed by Christopher B Landon{Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse}

Starring Jessica Rothe{La La Land} and Israel Broussard{Flipped}

Plot Overview: ​When a young University student awakens in the dormitory of a complete stranger, she must move through her day until she inevitably gets killed off. The catch? She must relive this same fate ever day until she can stop the seemingly omnipotent and omnipresent killer.

Going into this film, I expected a low rent slasher with a silly premise that I could write of a garbage. Well it certainly wasn't that. I was pleasantly surprised with this movie. It's a very fun Halloween movie. Don't go into it expecting the next big thing in terms of horror, go in expecting a fun comedy with horror elements and I think that you'll enjoy this movie very much.

What can I say that I liked about this movie, specifically? Well the tone was excellent. At the start, very few of the jokes hit for me so I got a little bit worried. But as the film progressed, it became a genuinely good comedy. I tend to like Horror-Comedies because I don't like the feeling of being scared, and thus a joke or two helps calm me down. The way they blend the two genres in this movie is almost effortless. It definitely leans a little more onto the comedy aspect than horror, which will definitely turn off those who EXPECTED this to be a horror movie. It's maybe a 1/4 horror movie, 3/4 comedy? The creepy and jumpy moments worked, but they were infrequent. With the exception of ONE, jump scares were also non existent in this movie. Thank the lord God for that! But to be fair, the one that they DO use was pretty effective and worked well. So as a whole, the tone for this movie was pretty darn excellent.

Another aspect of this movie that absolutely deserves praise, is Jessica Rothe's performance as a Tree. Sorry, the character's name is Tree; the character is unfortunately not a tree. She is, actually, far from it. Most horror movies just substitute in a stereotype of a character and expect that to work but this movie doesn't. She's the pretty girl but she's also the deluded, sociopath. Seriously! At the start of this movie, the character Tree is about as likable as the plant one. But Rothe portrayed this character undeniably well. Even in the latter half of the movie, she portrays the character exceptionally well and really sells the character's growth.

Another actor who appears in this movie was Israel Broussard. Broussard also gives an excellent performance as Carter. Not only that, but I also REALLY buy the romance between Tree and Carter. It doesn't feel forced in the slightest and that is rare for a movie nowadays. It usually feels wrong when two characters get together in a movie because I just cannot see it happening in real life. But thankfully, I did buy their relationship, and found it to be a very fun and goofy one to watch.

Alas, I do definitely have some flaws with this movie. The final 15 minutes and the grand reveal were my two main issues. I won't spoil either of course, so you can still enjoy this film. But personally, I found the final 15 minutes of this movie to be COMPLETELY unnecessary. So much so that I was getting ready to leave at the climax of the scene before that because I thought the film was over. But no. They drag it on an extra 15 minutes and reveal what I predicted to happen. Which was my second issue. I predicted the ending BUT only because I was paying REALLY close attention to a scene and, while it may have bee accidental, they reveal the ending by use of a prop. This may be just me being smart and interpreting it a weird way, or it may have been intentional, in which case then well done to those who were in charge of that. It was a very clever way to reveal it, and the people I saw this film with didn't catch on and I had to tell them about it afterwards. Despite that, I did figure it out so I can't really credit the reveal as being that good.

Something that personally didn't bother me but will bother other people, is the fact that this is not a horror movie by definition. It has elements of horror movies, yes. But it is still technically a comedy movie, which is NOT what the trailers suggested at all. So I can completely understand if horror fans felt mislead, therefore I do think that they should've either completely changed the marketing campaign OR included a LOT more horror elements and creepy scenes.

But aside from those flaws, I found this to be a very enjoyable movie. It isn't going to win any awards but I can see it gaining a cult following. It was certainly fun and entertaining and I will definitely recommend you go and see it. I'll rate 'Happy Death Day' 6 'Creepy Masks' out of 10!

'BLADE RUNNER 2049' - 2017

Directed by Dennis Villeneuve{Arrival}

Starring Ryan Gosling{La La Land}, Harrison Ford{Star Wars} and Ana De Armas{War Dogs}

Plot Overview: Out of respect for how fantastic this movie is, I will not divulge ANY plot details. If you want to get a rough grasp of the film, please watch a trailer, then see the film because it is amazing.

I think the best way to start would be to voice my opinion on Ridley Scott's 1982 'masterpiece', the original Blade Runner. Keep in mind that I've not seen the Final Cut so that may factor into it, but as a whole I wasn't too impressed with Blade Runner. I don't think it was a bad film but it certainly didn't live up to my expectations. 2049 is completely the opposite. I had very high expectations from the praise this film was receiving and even THEN, it exceeded my expectations. 2049 is a movie that I predict winning some academy awards, and maybe even Best Picture. It's not often that a sequel is superior to its predecessor, but I think this may be one of those times!

So what is good about this film? Well, where do I even begin! I think that Ryan Gosling is a good place to start. Many people thought that Gosling would be awarded the Oscar for La La Land. He did not win however. But I think this year may be his year. Gosling was FANTASTIC in this film at delivering his masterful performance as Officer K. Not once was I in disbelief about his character. Not once did I not buy a single line of dialogue. He was exceptional in this film.

Accompanying Gosling is the star of Scott's film, Harrison Ford. The man; the myth; the legend. Ford gives, pretty much as usual, an excellent performance as Deckard, and is responsible for some truly gut wrenching and harrowing scenes. I love this little comeback tour Ford is going on, revisiting his classic films. And if he's as good as this in 'Air Force Two' or 'What Lies Even Further Beneath', then I think I'm gonna like this tour very much.

Ana De Armas was great as Gosling's companion, Joi. She genuinely moved me in her performance and made me care about the relationship between a man and a hologram. Armas was excellent in this film and deserves a lot more praise than she has been getting.

Sylvia Hoeks was also excellent as the rather ironically named, Luv. Hoeks gave a sinister and at point down right evil performance. I thought she was great in this movie, and played the antagonist perfectly. Speaking of which, the antagonist for 2049, which by no means erases the GREATNESS of Rutger Haur, was a fairly interesting and conniving villain. In a weird way, she is justified, and I like that freedom to interpretation that Villeneuve provides.

Now for something that, if I had the film in front of me, could be analysed and analysed for days at a time: the technical side of this movie. Blade Runner 2049 is, without a doubt, one of the best looking movies of the 21st century, maybe even one of the best of the past 30 years. Villeneuve's direction is absolutely flawless. The jaw dropping visuals are absolute delights to behold. The camera work and framing is out of this world. The editing is perfectly concise. Even the visual effects look sensational. I swear to God, if Roger Deakins does not FINALLY win an Oscar for this movie, then there is NO justice in this sorry excuse for a world. The academy has been ducking Deakins for FAR TOO long and that needs to change. Please Academy, give the man what he deserves!!!!

Another thing I absolutely loved in this film was the absolutely riveting and intense story. I'm going to restrain myself from divulging any plot details because you really need to experience this film blind to the plot. But let me tell you, the plot is absolutely sensational in every sense of the word. I loved every single line of dialogue uttered, and I honestly think this film could win best original screenplay, or at least get nominated. The themes that are present are on par with the amazing themes present in Ridley Scott's movie. It is just, simply put, a fantastic movie.

If you can't tell, I absolutely loved Blade Runner 2049. It's got my vote for Best Picture and, while it just quite get to be my favourite film of the year, it certainly gets my vote for the best. I HIGHLY recommend that you see Blade Runner 2049. I'll rate it 10 'Wooden Horses' out of 10!

'THE SNOWMAN' - 2017

Directed by Tomas Alfredson{Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; Let the Right One In}

Starring Michael Fassbender{Steve Jobs; X-Men: First Class}, ​Rebecca Ferguson{Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, Life} and Charlotte Gainsbourge{Antichrist, Independence Day: Resurgence}

Plot Overview: ​For Detective Harry Hole, the death of a young woman during the first snowfall of winter feels like anything but a routine homicide. His investigation leads him to "The Snowman Killer," an elusive sociopath who continuously taunts Hole with cat- and-mouse games. As the vicious murders continue, Harry teams up with a brilliant recruit to try and lure the madman out of the shadows before he can strike again.

I understand that a 1001 things can go wrong for a film during it's production, to prevent it from perfect. But when you have such a talented cast of actors and a capable director, I don't understand how you can go as wrong as you have. Obviously esteemed actor have failed in the past, as have esteemed directors. But if you mix enough of them into a blender, it will surely create art. Right? Well apparently not, as this film fights to prove.

Perhaps the one and only true redeeming quality in this movie is Michael Fassbender. The man is a sensational actor and I can buy him in almost any role he plays. And that is no different here! He succeeds in conveying the dark and troubled nature of his character and at point makes my sympathise for him.

As far as minor praise goes, Rebecca Ferguson was at least decent in the movie. The setup was also pretty well done(not like it took 90 minutes or anything though) and the film at least looked very nice. It was a pleasant film to 'look' at. The cinematography and editing were both at least decent but it wasn't THAT great.

Now for the issues this movie has. And trust me, there are a LOT of them! Firstly I should comment on the plot and conclusion, without spoilers of course. The 'plot' of this movie consists of 75% setup, 20% Fassbender Family Time(more on that later) and around 5% of the actual freaking serial killer. It is one of the most dull, uninspired and lazy plots I've seen all year. With the exception of Transformers and Flatliners, of course! Then there is that GOD awful conclusion. I don't want to jump to conclusion but it may very well be the most disappointing climax this year has presented. Yep. It was THAT bad.

Then there is the fact that there an absurd number of characters, and NONE of them have any payoff whatsoever. What was the point of Val Kilmer{Top Gun}'s character? What was the point of JK Simmons{Spider-Man}'s character? What was the point of REBECCA FERGUSON's character? The answer to all of those questions is the exact same: there wasn't one. The story packs in so many characters and then NONE of them matter. Just Michael Fassbender and the serial killer. No one else in the entire film matters, but you'll be sure they do from the way a lot of them are presented.

Another thing that bothered me was how much time they spent trying to get me to care about Fassbender's character and family. It makes what's going to happen far too obvious and just slowed down the movie. I don't care if they went to a dumb concert or whatever, it was boring and dumb and slowed the film down to a screeching halt.

The pacing was also a major issue. The entire movie drags for 100 or so minutes and then all of a sudden we're forced into a very dull and stupid action climax where literally no worthwhile reveals are made and nothing of note even happens. I can't say I was let down because there was very was very little excitement and intrigue in me at this point. But if I can guess what's gonna happen in a SERIAL KILLER MYSTERY THRILLER, before the 30 minute mark; something is definitely wrong.

Overall, I really didn't like this movie. It's such a dull and boring let down, because I got genuinely excited from the trailers and the talent involved. But as it stands, The Snowman's hopes and dreams of a recommendation are melting on thin ice(badum tish). I'll rate 'The Snowman' 4 'Snowmen' out of 10.

'PULP FICTION' - 1994

Directed by Quentin Tarantino{Reservoir Dogs}

Starring John Travolta{Carrie; Grease}, Samuel L Jackson{Jurassic Park; Jungle Feaver} and Bruce Willis{Die Hard; Hudson Hawk}

Plot Overview: ​Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) are hit men with a penchant for philosophical discussions. In this ultra-hip, multi-strand crime movie, their storyline is interwoven with those of their boss, gangster Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) ; his actress wife, Mia (Uma Thurman) ; struggling boxer Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) ; master fixer Winston Wolfe (Harvey Keitel) and a nervous pair of armed robbers, "Pumpkin" (Tim Roth) and "Honey Bunny" (Amanda Plummer).

I think that the best way for me to describe this movie is as follows: "I don't know why that happened, but it did; and I like it". Because that is pretty much my reaction to everything in this movie. From the chitchat to the dance scene: very little in this movie makes sense contextually to the plot but I really like it in that weird way. There is NO reason for half of what does happen to happen, but what does happen happens so what's the point in trying to complain?

As far as my major praises go, it has to be to Quentin Tarantino. The man is a literal directing and stylistic God. His movies look so crisp and fantastic, and each of them have such a unique and interesting stylised look towards them. The way he frames shots is excellent; the editing is immaculate; the lighting is flawless: Tarantino movies are some of the most stylish movies that have ever been made, and are a huge factor in the reason why Pulp Fiction is such a great movie. Even though they are GREAT directors, Kubrick, Hichock, Spielberg, Scorcese, Fincher, Coppola, Welles - none of them could recreate the magic of Pulp Fiction, because Tarantino is the only man alive capable of doing so.

Another major praise I can award the film is the sensational performances from all the cast. John Travolta is excellent as Vincent Vega and really shows that the man is capable of doing 'actual films' *cough* Battlefield Earth, yeah I know it came out after Pulp Fiction - be quiet *cough*. Accompanying Travolta is my personal favourite performance in this film: Samuel L Jackson as Jules. Holy Jesus was Jackson amazing in this movie. He sells every single scene he is in and was easily one of the best parts of this movie. The sheer raw emotion that he elicits at points makes me think that it wasn't acting; it was genuine frustration and anger. Also in this film is Uma Thurman{Dangerous Liaisons; Mad Dog and Glory}. Thurman was, surprise surprise, excellent in this movie. Despite not having a huge role, she sold every scene she was in and consistently gave me goosebumps in the simple way her and Travolta communicated. A man whom I did NOT know was in this movie was the great Bruce Willis. I knew that Travolta and Jackson and Thurman were all in this movie so I already knew they had some solid actors and a good cast. But then Willis showed up and I was blown away. We all know the man has impeccably action chops with the legendary film 'Die Hard', but up until now I hadn't really seen his dramatic capabilities. And let me tell you, he didn't disappoint. There are point in this movie were, similar to Jackson, I didn't actually believe that Willis was acting: merely existing. His performance was that authentic and realistic. A couple actors who had more minor roles but still did excellent jobs were Ving Rhames{The People under the stairs; Dave}, Harvey Keitel{Reservoir Dogs; Taxi Driver}, Tim Roth{Reservoir Dogs; Vincent and Theo} and Ammander Plummer{So I married an axe murdered; Joe Versus the Volcano}. Each of them definitely deserves praise for their performances.

The story for this movie was amazing. The point of it still escapes me but I'm pretty sure that was apart of Tarantino's genius intentions. I love the fact that it doesn't give you all the answers and the FANTASTIC way the film is structured. Like seriously! I usually like non-linear storytelling but this takes the cake for some of the most interesting method of storytelling that I've seen. Of course, I won't spoil it. But rest assured that it is certainly rewarding to watch, granted that you're paying attention!

A more minor praise that I can award this movie is the dialogue. It is SO good. Dialogue is usually one of Tarantino's strengths so I guess it's not a surprise but that doesn't detract from the sheer quality of it. Just something as simple as discussing cheeseburgers or asking about a watch are elevated to MEMORABLE scenes, purely based on Tarantino's phenomenal skill in writing.

I do have one flaw with this movie, but it's not REALLY a flaw. I think that the second act can feel a little disjointed and not work that well when watching the film for the first time. Granted, it does make sense overall, but that doesn't change the fact that it feels VERY misplaced and out of context. The is doubly apparent when you consider its content differs COMPLETELY from Acts I & III. Again, this isn't a major complaint and I still love this movie, but it's something I think deserves a mention.

Overall, I loved this movie. It's a modern day classic, and we have the cinematic genius Quentin Tarantino to thank for that. His style, his direction, his dialogue and his script are all PERFECT and are knitted together like a flawless quilt. It's remarkable how good the man is at what he does. I highly recommend this movie'. I'll rate 'Pulp Fiction' 10 'Royales With Cheese'!

'THE SIMPSONS MOVIE' - 2007

Directed by David Silverman{Directorial Debut}

Starring Dan Castellaneta{The Pursuit of Happiness; The Cat in the Hat}, Nancy Cartwright{The Little Mermaid; Rugrats Go Wild} and Julie Kavner{Doctor Dolitle; Click}.

Plot Overview: After Springfield becomes the most polluted city in the USA, government employee Russ Cargill(Albert Brooks{Finding Nemo; Lost in America}) decided to place a large dome around Springfield, trapping the inhabitants. When the townsfolk uncover that it was Homer(Dan Castellaneta) who sentenced them to this fate, Homer and co must flee Springfield and try to evade the government.

It would probably be fitting for me to voice my thoughts on the show before I review this film. I don't mind the show. I think that I respect it more than I like it. It did a lot to Television, namely animated shows so I highly commend it for what it contributed to entertainment. But as a show, I think it's fine. And as a whole, I think this movie is fine also. I liked it. I don't think it even holds a candle to South Park BL&U(if comparisons are gonna annoy you then you may wish to turn back now) but it succeeds as a family friendly piece of entertainment. Which is what The Simpsons has always been.

What things did I like about this movie, for a start. Similar to the TV show, the voice acting is great. Dan Castellaneta does a great job at voicing all his roles, particularly Homer and Grandpa. Nancy Cartwright voiced my favourite character from the show, Bart, and does it excellently. She also voiced a couple other characters but Bart is her main piece of meat to play with. Julie Kavner was great at voicing Marge as well as others. I thought that every voice actor did a good job and provided a decent amount of range for all the characters.

Another thing that I can praise highly is the animation and cinematography. Having a bigger budget(I presume) would definitely give them greater freedom to make the animation stand out and they certainly did that. 'The Simpsons Movie' looks great from an animation standpoint, and even the cinematography/editing are great too. It is a very nice looking movie.

And now there is something that may sound controversial but hear me out. I don't find The Simpsons funny. It's never been my style of comedy. It's fine for what it is but I really don't think it's this titan of comedic genius that many people claim it as. It's fine. That's were it begins and ends for me. It is fine. That is also a similar opinion to the comedy in this movie. I think the longer run time probably helped because there was more time to pack in jokes and gags, and quite a few of them did hit for me. Few of the jokes definitively FAILED but by the same merit virtually none made me laugh out loud. I smiled consistently and once or twice elicited a mild chuckle but there wasn't really a point that I fully lost control and laughed.

And now for some issues! Yay! I cannot stand their attempt at satire. Similarly to how BL&U tried to satirise censorship and people's backwards opinion on what is and isn't allowed, The Simpsons Movie tries to satirise the US government's inability to do anything remotely useful. I really don't see the point in doing this. Maybe a simple moral or two here or there but basing the ENTIRE plot of the movie on this intricate attempt at a 'BRILLIANT!' satire just didn't work. BL&U did this excellently, but then again that was what South Park was known for. Mocking culture, religion, law and politics. The Simpsons has always been, as far as I know, a basic family show that is fun to watch, so their dry attempt at getting into the 'greater meaning' game was rather pointless and stupid, in my honest opinion.

I was also annoyed at certain things to do with charters. Firstly, all the 'good' non-main characters were COMPLETELY sidelined. Flanders barely has a role, Krusty doesn't, Ralph Wiggum doesn't, Willie doesn't, Millhouse doesn't, Mr Burns doesn't. Instead, we get a very dull and uninteresting antagonist, and an Irish twerp. Colin was a very uninteresting love interest for Lisa and I seriously do not understand what role he actually played in this movie. And then there is the villain; he was SUCH a disappointment. He wasn't funny, he wasn't smart; his one and only role was to satirise the government, and even then he failed miserably. The GOOD characters we all know and love should have remained, and in doing so drop the utterly ridiculous satire of the government. I really like the dome idea but maybe have Mr Burns or someone do it and make him go FULL evil. That'd be funny, or even do a mild mannered character and make them snap. That'd be funny. But no. We get a very boring story about how the government is evil and useless(I'm not disagreeing with that statement but it didn't need to be in The Simpsons).

As a whole, I do like this movie. It's fun and entertaining to an extent but it does lack a solid villain and plot, as well as some of the best characters in the show. But, if you do like the show, I can recommend it. A fair percent of the jokes hit and it's by now means a chore to sit through. But the flaws do really stand out, for me at least. Despite this, I recommend this film. I'll rate 'The Simpsons Movie' 7 'Spiderpigs' out of 10!

​'SPEED' 1994

Directed by Jan De Bont{Directorial Debut}

Starring Keanu Reeves{Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure; Point Break}, Sandra Bullock{Demolition Man; Love Potion No 9} and Dennis Hopper{Apocalypse Now; Rebel Without a Cause}

Plot Overview: As revenge for foiling his master plan scheme, a demolitions expert/terrorist plants a bomb on a commercial bus which will detonate, if the bus goes below 50 miles per hour!

'Speed' is a movie that is held very dear to many action fan's hearts for many years. I've been dodging watching it for a while but I've finally cracked and gave into my curiosity. And my opinion of the movie? I liked it. It was a fun action movie with an EXCELLENT premise and cool ideas. As a full package, I can definitely recommend it.

So what can I say are the film's main strengths? The overall tone and atmosphere is probably its' greatest strength. Considering the situation, the tone is pretty light-hearted but all the characters take it seriously. I guess that's what I loved about it. The juxtaposition of the tone of dialogue compared to the tone of the characters. It makes the movie undeniably fun to see Keanu Reeves perform with such sincerity and seriousness when in reality, it's just a dumb action flick. That leads onto another praise I can give: the passengers aboard the bus. I loved pretty much every main side character who was on this bus, with the exception of our two leads.

Another major praise I can give the movie Dennis Hopper's villain. Howard Payne is a good movie villain. He's smart, he's pretty funny, he's conniving and he is remorseless. Alone these qualities may seem random, but when combined they make a truly interesting villain. Top that with Dennis Hopper's excellent performance and you have a pretty darn good antagonist.

I also absolutely love the score for this movie. This falls into the category of minor praise but it really deserves to get a full paragraph for it. Mark Mancina's EXCELLENT score for this movie is ridiculously fun and inventive and entertaining. It is arguably one of the better action movie themes of the 90s. It's just such an adernaline fuelled score that fits perfectly with the overall tone of the movie.

But what issues do I have? Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock are two on the most dull actors on this planet. Don't get me wrong: Reeves is an EXCELLENT action star and I truly admire his commitment to the role. But I've seen school plays with more realistic and emotional performances. He's awful in pretty much every movie he is in. And then there is Sandra Bullock. To be fair, Bullock isn't an awful actress. But her performance in this movie is so unconvincing and so dry that I thought that Reeves had infected her with his disease. Combine the mediocre acting with a forced and botched love story and very underdeveloped characters, and you have a pair of leads that are an actual chore to sit through.

My other main issue is the final act. It's just so over the top. And I usually wouldn't mind that but I don't think this drastic change in pace suited the overall movie. It was an action movie but it was a more of a slow burn action movie. This final act was just really dumb and didn't fit in tone with the movie. I was thoroughly disappointed with this movie's conclusion; it was such a mess.

Overall, I did like 'Speed' though. It's certainly a fun and entertaining action movie, but the last act and two lead characters make it a chore to sit through, towards the end. Despite this grievances, I do recommend you watch 'Speed'. The action is mostly alright and the tone is pretty much perfect; it's a very enjoyable movie. I'll rate 'Speed' 7 'CANS' out of 10!

'CARRIE' - 1976

Directed by Brian De Palma{The Wedding Party; Singers}

Starring Sissy Spacek{Prime Cut; Badlands}, Piper Laurie{The Hustler; Son of Ali Baba} and Nancy Allen{The Last Detail; Forced Entry}

Plot Overview: Carrie(Sissy Spacek{ is a young girl, in highschool, who is bullied for being different and every night must go home to her abusive, religious mother. After Carrie receives her first period, in the middle of school, her bullying becomes more frequent, all the way until she is about to burst.

Before I watched this movie, I made sure to read King's novel. And I thoroughly enjoyed it. So I went into this movie rather excited about the possibilities. And after watching it; it was fine. Yeah. It was alright. I liked some changes, disliked others. I wouldn't gloat about it being a masterpiece but I certainly wouldn't dismiss it as awful. It's a fine movie. That's the best way I can sum it up.

What are the movie's main positives? Sissy Spacek as Carrie was a phenomenal performance. In a disturbing way, I bought into her being a depressed, troubled, poor, tortured soul, and constantly felt sorry for her in all the barbaric abuse she had to put up with. It was a performance that could have certainly won an Oscar; it was that good.

Another excellent performance would be Piper Laurie as Carrie's mum. THIS was a genuinely terrifying performance. I don't like religious nut jobs at the best of times so one of them having complete power and control and dominion over me is scary enough. Add Laurie's twisted and demonic performance as the literal embodiment of Satan, and you've got a fantastic, chilling and memorable performance that could also have EASILY won the Oscar.

Most of the remainder of the acting(except one person) was pretty good. Nancy Allen was great as the sadistic and cruel Chris. Amy Irving succeeded in her limited screen time at portraying the remorseful and sorrowful Sue. William Katt was also good as the cheerful and helpful Tommy Ross. With the exception of one person, no one did a genuinely poor performance in this movie, for me at least.

Another massive praise I can give the movie is the remarkably unsettling way it is shot and edited together. De Palma's remarkable skills made moments in this movie chill me to the bone. I was constantly uneasy and on the edge of my seat, and De Palma masterfully drums up atmosphere and suspense until we reach the climax. Pino Donaggio's excellent score also helps in this brilliant creation of suspense and makes the movie constantly put me on edge.

I love the original Stephen King story and therefore the aspects that do carry over are excellent and horrifying to behold. They do, however, make quite a number of changes. One of these changes, I absolutely loved. I won't spoil it but it was a genuinely creepy and horrifying moment of the film. It legitimately sent goosebumps and shivers down my spine. That is the only change I liked however, which I will now elaborate on.

Obviously books cannot be translated to film word for word, and things either need to be altered, removed or condensed to make it a pleasant viewing experience. But the sheer amount of the third act that they condensed down made it annoying to watch. I was looking forward to seeing certain scenes and moments but they either cut it out COMPLETELY or edited it drastically. One of them was a specific way in which something happens to a major character. They COMPLETELY change how this happens to them and I really, really disliked that. The movie would have been fine at 2 hours, if they let the third act flourish like it was supposed to.

And now for that actor who I mentioned before. John 'The Madman' Travolta. I have no issues with this man. Is he mentally unstable? Yes! Does this benefit his roles? Of course! Is he at least a fun actor? Definitely! I don't have issues with the man as an actor but there was something about him in this movie that I just REALLY did not like. He just wasn't that good in the movie. The character he plays was a very interesting one in the novel. I was pleased with how much of the character remained but not with how they portrayed him. I just think that Travolta was the wrong guy to cast in this role. He doesn't fit the role, in my honest opinion.

Overall, I do like this movie. It maintains chunks of the original story, each of which is a delight to see on screen. It contains a steady series of excellent performances, and it features a very uneasy atmosphere. But I detest how much they altered the third act. I feel a little bad for marking it down so much but I really think it shouldn't have been changed. The climax of King's novel was fantastic, this is just lazy and uninteresting. But as a whole I do recommend this movie. I'll rate this movie 6 'Disturbing Shower Scenes' out of 10!

'GHOSTBUSTERS' - 1984

Directed by Ivan Reitman{Stripes; Meatballs}

Starring Bill Murray{Caddyshack; Stripes}, Dan Akroyd{The Blues Brothers; Trading Places} and Harold Ramis{Animal House; National Lampoon's Vacation}

Plot Overview: After encountering a librarian ghost, three scientists setup a new protection agency: The Ghostbusters, specialising in the busting of ghosts. No one takes their craft seriously, but when a demonic force begins to threaten the city; it's up to the Ghostbusters to stop it before it is too late.

I know, I know. It's criminal that I only just got around to seeing this wonderful movie. If you haven't already seen this movie, I urge you to see it now, and not wait as long as I did to do so. Everything about this movie is good, pure, family fun and entertainment. Some idiots would say that that is a negative, but I very much so disagree. This movie is accessible to ALL people, no matter their age or background. It's excellently crafted fun that the whole family can enjoy and laugh to.

What are this movie's major pluses? The FANTASTIC chemistry between the cast certainly comes to mind. Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis are phenomenal in their distinctive and memorable role as Peter, Ray and Egon respectively. I've watched this movie once and I can easily remember everything about their characters. They are all fun, memorable and unique. As for Whinston, that's another story that I'll touch on later.

Accompanying the holy trio is a side helping of Sigourney Weaver{Alien; The Year of Living Dangerously} and Rick Moranis{Acting Debut}. Both of these actors do extremely well in their unfortunately minor roles. I particularly loved Moranis as the socially awkward, inept next door neighbour to Signourney Weaver. He NAILED this role and was responsible for a great deal of the film's laughs, after Murray of course.

The humour in this movie is awesome. I dare say it's a universally loved classic of comedy. Murray delivers some of the best one liners and jokes of the 1980s, and the remainder of the cast do their very best to support him. I'd say only two characters didn't have a funny line and that'd be Dana Barret(Sigourney Weaver) and Egon. However, Weaver isn't in the movie that much, and Egon's straight faced attitude ironically makes for a barrel of laughs. Even characters I didn't like(more on that later) had couple of good lines and jokes.

As far as more minor praise, the soundtrack for this movie is flawless. The now iconic Ghostbusters theme tune could genuinely go down as one of the greatest theme tunes of all time; it is that excellent.

What issues do I have with the movie? I take issue with a couple of the characters. Firstly, Whinston. What is the point of this character? He shows up. Makes a decent joke or two. And nothing else. I know this film has a sequel so maybe he'll get more screen time then, but as it is - there are only three Ghostbusters worth talking about, in my honest opinion. Next, the secretary was also pretty dull and useless. Like Whinston, she showed up, made a decent joke or two, and nothing else. There was literally NO point to her being in the film. Like, none. I don't understand why she was here because she contributed negative things to the plot. And finally, the villain. Ghostbusters' villain is not scary; it's not funny; it's not even a decent blend of the two. The villain in Ghostbusters is just plain bad. There is no interest in the character and no likable, charming or frightening qualities to even make them somewhat compelling. Such a weak villain for an otherwise awesome movie.

I'll also say that the action in this movie is very weak. It consists of pointing a stick at a monster. BRILLIANT! No. No it's not. Without the comedy, action sequences in this movie would be remarkably dull and boring and just plain awful. I really wish that A LOT more effort was put into it because that(and a somewhat compelling villain) would have made this movie a 10/10, because it certainly has the ability to go for it.

Overall, I loved Ghostbusters. It was fun, fast, inventive and had a heck of a lot of heart. Sure the antagonist is mediocre and the action leaves you feel unsatisfied, but the main trio of Murray, Akroyd and Ramis help make this movie the comedic classic that it deserves to be. I definitely recommend 'Ghostbusters', and I'll rate this movie 8 'MASS HYSTERIAs' out of 10!

*IF I OFFEND YOU WITH THIS REVIEW, I AM SORRY. IF IT OFFENDED YOU; IT WAS ME TRYING TO USE A JOKE TO SHOW HOW GARBAGE THIS FILM IS*

'FLATLINERS' - 2017

Directed by NielS Arden Oplev{The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo(2009); Dead Man Down}

Starring Ellen Page{Juno; Inception}, James Norton{Happy Valley} and Nina Dobrev{xXx: Return of Xandar Cage; Lets Be Cops}

Plot Overview: During a medical experiment, Courtney(Ellen Page) and her four friends stop her heart, in an attempt to see what's on the the other side. At first, they excel in their everyday lives. But as time passes, they realise that the pros may not be worth the cons.

Wow. Where do I start with this dumpster fire of a film. When critiquing a movie, I prefer to not state my opinion as fact and let anyone who'll listen to my opinion decide for themselves. That is not the case with this movie. 'Flatliners' is a literal travesty of a film. With the slim exception, of one minuscule slither of content, these film is a piece of utter garbage from second one until the end. It's not so bad it's good; it's so bad it's unholy. But anyway let me start with the positives.

Page.

Now onto the negatives, everything else! Every single other performance in this godforsaken piece of gutter trash. James Norton looks less interested in what's going on on screen, than the Nazis were interested in the welfare of non-white people. Nina Dobrev gives as uninspired performance as they come and I genuinely wouldn't have been half surprised if she was on marijuana while they were filming. Kiersey Clemons gives a very limited performance as Other Race Girl, as does Diego Luna as Token Other Race Guy. I'm not being racist; I'm being honest. Each character falls into the very inspiring and GENIUS reinventions of the wheel, such as Smart Person, Hot Guy, Hot Girl, Other Race Girl and Other Race Guy. It is literally like Oprev was throwing darts at a board when he let these people be these characters. 'Mein Kempf' had more innovation and creativity. The only things that were missing to fulfil the holy collection of heavenly laziness would be the stereotypical gay guy, and the Jew.

The story for this movie was also unbelievably awful. There is less creativity and 'fun' in this movie than there are Gay Fan fictions in the West burro Baptist Church Psycho Cult Induction Guide(If you got offended at this, then you deserve to be offended). I'm not good at predicting were a film is gonna go and genuinely don't try and predict it. But with this film, I was pretty much reciting the script without even reading it. It's the most clichéd, blatantly lazy script I've ever 'read'. How did a script this bad get anywhere past the bins?

The other main issue I have with this movie are the atrocious scares. I despise horror movies because I dislike being scared, but I was disappointed that I wasn't scared in this movie. And you know what the sad thing is? The scares have EXCELLENT buildup but then NO payoff. It's stupid. SpongBob is a more mentally scarring product of entertainment than this movie. No joke. There are more disturbing and creepy scenes in SPONGEBOB than there are in an adult horror movie. I'm not making this up or exaggerating. Honestly, if you feel genuine fear from this movie: you're either 5 years old OR there is something wrong with you.

Overall, Flatliners 2017 was a utter mess of epic proportions. It was atrocious. Please don't waste your money on it. It's not 'The Room' it's just bad. I'll rate 2017's 'Flatliners' 1 'Possessed Radios' out of 10.

'EVEREST' - 2015

Directed by Baltasar Kormakur{2 Guns; Contraband}

Starring Jason Clarke{Dawn of the Planet of the Apes; White House Down}, Josh Brolin{The Goonies; No Country for Old Men} and Josh Hawkes{The Sessions; Winter's Bone}

Plot Overview: We follow experienced Mt Everest Climbers, Rob Hall(Jason Clarke) and Scott Fishcer(Jake Gyllenhaal{Brokeback mountain; Nightcrawler}) take a series of mountain climbers to the peak of Everest. But when an unexpected storm strikes, Hall and Fishcer must get their climbers down before it is too late.

I am a man whom is VERY fond of films that have been based on a true story. The sometimes horrifying fact that an event actually took place is haunting to me, but immensely intriguing. Thus, I went into this movie with perhaps too high of expectations. Kormakur's movie '2 Guns' ceased to impress me so I should have maybe lowered those expectations. Alas, I believe in second chances so I gave the man a chance. And I was incredibly disappointed. Everest is a dull, boring, monotonous Oscar bait film that I had the displeasure of seeing. Nothing in this film is distinctly amazing, nothing in this movie is distinctly good. But this isn't one of those average movies where you think 'Oh it wasn't too bad; I could still watch it again sometime'. This is one of those average movies that was a chore to get through, not based on quality but based on entertainment value. I didn't expect Jason Clarke to wield a bazooka and rocket jump up the mountain, but the overly long and boring dullness that this film presents, once again, ceased to impress me.

Did I like anything in this film though? Yeah. I loved the performances. Not a single actor fails in this movie and they consistently displayed the hardships they're facing and barbaric nature of the event they find themselves in. Two standouts for me are easily the two I initially billed: Jason Clarke and Josh Brolin. Clarke is an actor that I've never took issue with, but has never been blown away by. That is until this movie. Clarke delivers a gut wrenching and harrowing performance as Rob Hall and he was, perhaps unfairly, one of the only two characters I felt a genuine connection to. I think you can guess who the other was. Surprise, surprise - it was the other character in the movie who gave a stand out performance. Josh Brolin is an excellent actor and I truly loved his performance in this film. He is the other character I was even remotely interested in, and that is down to Brolin's excellent performance. Was anyone Oscar worthy? No. But I was definitely fulfilled and pleased with the performances in this film.

Another aspect of the film I was impressed by, was the visuals. The cinematography in this movie was excellent, and Kormakur definitely succeeds in enveloping the audience in his cold, calculating blanket of snow and ice. I actually got shivers at certain point from the way Kormakur utilised the camera and visual effects to manufacture a chilling, icy atmosphere of isolation. The editing was also very well done and incredibly concise. Visuals are honestly the greatest praise I can award this movie. Alas, amazing visuals are not enough.

I don't think I can call the story of this film weak without possibly offending someone. But in all honestly, I did. As insensitive as this may be to say, I don't think it was that interesting OR a story that needed to be told. Don't get me wrong: it's absolutely horrible was happened on that mountain, and my sympathy forever lies with the families and victims, but I just didn't find the event itself that interesting. I was frequently bored throughout this film. I had little to no interest in what was happening and didn't really care for any of the characters, as cruel as that may be to say.

Expanding on that point, films like this rely on the audience feeling sympathy for the characters. But I didn't. The two I did actually care for were the only two that I actually knew something about. They have a little meeting that is designed to give me an insight into their lives, make me care for them and bloat the already overly long run time(seriously, it's 2 hours long but it feels like 4). Alas, all of these goals fail except the last one. I have no interest in that the woman has climbed "6 of the 7 peaks" or whatever; I don't know anything about HER, only what she has achieved. It's this unfortunate lack of sympathy that lets this film down for me.

As a whole, I was disappointed by 'Everest'. It succeeds in being one of the most mind numbing films I have watched in ages, so credit for that. It has gorgeous visuals and great performances but the disconnect from the situation and characters that I felt made me see no reason in watching it. I didn't like 'Everest' and so I cannot recommend it. I'll rate 'Everest' 5 out of 10.

​'AN INSPECTOR CALLS' - 2015

Directed by Aisling Walsh{Maudie; Song for a Raggy Boy}

Starring David Thewslis{Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban; The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas}, Ken Stott{The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey; Cafe Society} and Chloe Pirrie{Shell; Youth}

Plot Overview: After a young girl commits suicide, Inspector Goole(David Thewlis) pays the Birling family a visit. Armed with an in depth knowledge about the events and a calm demeanour, Goole interrogates the household, trying to get to the bottom of the night's events.

It would probably be useful to say my thoughts on the play before I divulge my opinion of this film. My opinion of the play is that it's a perfectly passable metaphor for Socialism VS Capitalism, contains some good characters and lines but ultimately falters due to its 'Scooby-Doo' plot structure. Now my thoughts on the film. It is a perfectly passable metaphor for Socialism VS Capitalism, contains some good characters and lines but ultimately falters due to its 'Scooby Doo' plot structure.

So what is good about it? David Thewlis is probably the film's greatest strength. I admire the man as an actor in pretty much every role he plays. He has a certain gravitas to him and certain demeanour which makes him both intimidating and likable at the same time. Inspector Goole was the only character I liked in the play, and that statement carries over to this film. Another performance that was semi-decent in the movie was Ken Stott as Birling. He was pretty much exactly what I expected and Stott did a decent job at portraying the real remorseless nature of Birling. Despite this, I don't think he stole the role. I could name a couple actors that I think could have done a much better job in the role, like Brian Cox for example. But Stott didn't do a bad job. It wasn't 'good' but it was at least passable.

Another major praise I can award the film is the amazing atmosphere they create, mostly down the the fantastic music. Dominik Scherer's fantastic score constantly builds up an eerie atmosphere that PERFECTLY falls in line with the plot of the movie. If anything, I'd argue that the music is the driving force of the movie. Without such a good score, the movie would be just a dull and monotonous experience. But the excellent score makes it a dull and monotonous experience with great atmosphere.

The final praise I can give the film is the cinematography. The story may be dumb and the overall package may be extremely boring, but it definitely looks nice. The editing is also pretty concise and at least decent. The lighting is excellent and, as well as the music, helps to manufacture a chilling atmosphere.

As for issues, I can certainly name a couple. Any and all performances that do not stem from Thewlis or Stott are very poor. I didn't believe a single word most the remainder of the cast uttered and I really couldn't have cared less about any of them. That leads into a separate flaw: the fact that I couldn't care any less about the characters. Not to say the characters are not good characters. They are certainly interesting. But by the time the movie is over, I didn't care of sympathise with any of them. You could argue that's the point but I disagree. I should like and care for certain characters in the movie, Eva Smith for example, but I just don't. None of them deserve sympathy or empathy, which is a little strange because that begs the question: what is the point of it all? What do we the audience get out of the movie if our care for anyone on screen is at point 0? I mean all the characters have depth and are well written but I didn't even really root for the Inspector. What's the point in it all? I should CONNECT and sympathise with the characters on screen but I just don't. I couldn't care less about them. And that really damages the overall experience.

Then there is an issue that is technically out of the filmmaker's hands: I have no interest in the story. This probably relates back to the previous complaint by the fact that we are supposed to be invested in these characters but I just wasn't. I understand the importance of certain themes and how they were effective at the time of release, but by today? I don't think they matter that much. The system of class is pretty much nonexistent. Women are much more fairly treated. There isn't really a distinctive war raging on between generations. Therefore, the movie feels pointless as a whole. And don't even get me started on that ending. I liked the play's ending for it's eerie ambiguity but this makes it 10x more confusing and idiotic. It adds 50 theories into a blender, spits in it and then adds the remains of J.B Priestley before pressing blend and watching all your hard work spray about, because you forgot to put a lid on it.

As a whole, I didn't like this movie. David Thewlis was excellent and it has a fantastic atmosphere, but the story and characters are distinctly lacking. It's not a good movie in my opinion, but it's not entirely bad. The praise I awarded just about balances out the negatives, but only just about. As a whole, I don't think this film is worth seeing. It's not that good. I'll rate 2015's 'An Inspector Calls' 5 'Long Stares' out of 10!

​'KINGSMAN: THE_GOLDEN_CIRCLE' - 2017

Directed by Matthew_Vaugh{X-Men: First Class; Kick-Ass}

Starring Taron_Egerton{Legend; Eddie the Eagle}, Julianne_Moore{Boogie Nights; Magnolia} and Colin_Firth{The King's Speech; Bridget Jones' Diary}

Plot Overview: When another eccentric villain appears, threatening to kill millions, the now crippled Kingsman must join forces with their American cousins and stop this villain before it is too late.

With the exception of THIS movie, Matthew Vaughn has neglected to do a sequel any of his movies. Therefore, his choice to do this made me VERY excited/hopeful for this movie. And after watching it, I was fulfilled. It's different enough from the first so I can differentiate the two, but it doesn't do anything revolutionary, like the first. If it ain't broke, then don't fix it.

What're the positives for this movie? Vaughn's style certainly springs to mind. Vaughn is, without question, one of my favourite directors working today. I've liked every film he has released and his style is such a vibrant & fun one. That's no different here. I love the way he shoots and edits this movie to keep adrenaline pumping in the action sequences and humour bubbling in the middle moments. Does the style differ from the original? No. But the original looked fantastic, as does this. Action sequences are jaw dropping and a blast to watch, and the middle moments are well shot also. It's a visual delight!

Another praise I can give this movie is the range of performances from its cast. Taron Egerton, once again, does a fantastic job as Eggsy, and really sells the 'Not James Bond' archetype. He's everything James Bond is and isn't, and Egerton sells this flawlessly. Colin Firth is, once again, excellent as Harry, and I admire the man for his action capabilities. Dramatic experience from 'The King's Speech' and whatnot also aids him in the quiet/dramatic moments. Mark Strong{Sherlock Holmes; Kick-Ass} reprises his role as Merlin. The accent remains, as does the straight faced attitude. What more do you want out of a character? I was very pleased he reprised the role. The only statesmen that is worthy of mention(not because of performance but because of contribution) is Pedro Pascal{The Great Wall; Game of Thrones}'s Whiskey. Yes, his name is that of an alcoholic beverage but it's hilarious so who cares. Anyway, Pascal is excellent in the action sequences but I think he lacks some credibility in the more dramatic moments. Only a minor flaw but it's still something that irked me. Edward Holcroft{Kingsman: The Secret Service; The Sense of An Ending} was also great in his role of Charlie, that posh brat from the first movie. Same actor; same character; same desire to end the git's life. So well done to Holcrof; he made me want to assault him.

As for minor praise I can award the film, I love the music and costume/set design. The use of Frank Sinatra in the original movie was already hilarious but they return to that style of music in this, and it is as funny it was originally. I also love the costume design for both the Kingsman and Statesmen. The stereotypes for each country perfectly shine through and are humorously executed. Then there is the set design. The main place I admired the set design was in the villain's base. I won't spoil anything but I thought it was a very funny and eccentric environment to use.

Vaughn's signature style of humour also shines through. I absolutely love his style of comedy. There is a character in this movie that I didn't expect to be as funny as they were but they delivered. Each character has a couple good jokes and funny moments, and succeeded in making the movie very entertaining.

That humour point is also an issue I have with this movie. Some of the dramatic moments are undercut directly with jokes, which makes them lose all impact. I really dislike this. In the first one, the dramatic scenes were still dramatic while the funny scenes were still funny. Here, the funny scenes are still funny but the dramatic scenes are blended with funny moments, so I wish they just left them moments alone. There was one in particular I had a distaste for, which I won't get into for the sake of spoilers.

Now for another unfortunate issue: the villain. Not that Julianne Moore does a bad job; she was good, but the character she was portraying was not. She remained in one location for the entire film and contributed nothing to the plot until the last moments. Valentine was, debates about the lisp(it was great) aside, at least an active villain. He contributed to the plot and murdered Galahad. That made him pretty intimidating and genuinely threatening. Moore's villain just sits there and acts creepy to make her more threatening. Nothing wrong with that as a performance but she doesn't 'do' anything.

Another issue I had was the unfortunate sidelining of the Statesmen. I wish they gave them more screen time. It was annoying to see them CONSTANTLY pushed to the side, especially considering the marketing campaign depicted them having a reasonably large role. I don't think its a spoiler when I say that Halle Berry, JEFF BRIDGES & Channing Tatum are all just pushed to the side without a second thought. That was immensely disappointing because I wanted to get to know these characters. Alas, I cannot.

Overall, I liked this movie. It's not dissimilar to the first one but I like that. Everyone loved the first one so what's the point in drastically changing it around? It's an engaging and entertaining way to spend two hours so I can 100% recommend it. I'm not saying the critics were WRONG, but I certainly think they've been overly harsh on it. I'll rate this movie 8 'PUT_IT_DOWNS' out of 10!

'BOWFINGER' - 1999

Directed by Frank Oz{The Dark Crystal; The Muppets Take Manhattan}

Starring Steve Martin{Planes, Trains and Automobiles; Roxanne}. Eddie Murphy{Beverly Hills Cop; Coming to America} and Heather Graham{Boogie Nights; License to Drive}

Steve MARTIN is a man that I truly admire in comedy. While I'm not always on board with his specific style of comedy, his movies NEVER cease to at least entertain and intrigue me. I love the SLIGHT cynicism to a lot of his movies and that is no different here, with 'Bowfinger'. As luck would have it,'Bowgfinger' is a Steve Martin movie that I really like and would recommend. It's not an Oscar worthy movie but it's still a fun, entertaining and slightly cynical satire of the 'dark side of Hollywood'. I definitely recommend this movie. It's well worth checking out.

What do I like about this movie then? Well Steve Martin and Eddie Murphy are two very prominent reasons. Each actor delivers a very funny and at points heartfelt performance that elevates both of their pretty basic characters into multidimensional, interesting beings. I love the cynical edge to Steve Martin's character. It beautifully reflects a satire of Directors in Hollywood. On the flip side of that spectrum, Eddie Murphy's character is a perfect satire of Actors in Hollywood. I love the way they combine these two characters into this wonderful satirical adventure. An argument could be made that more time SHOULD have been dedicated to Kit(Eddie Murphy)'s character, but I disagree. I admire the mystery and intrigue behind his character. He's clearly delusional and, while I trust Steve Martin to write an interesting backstory for him, I think that ambiguity adds a lot to his character.

The story for this movie is also a strong point for me. I dislike being repetitious and condescending so I wont go too much into the satire and cynical edge that this movie offers. But what I will say is I admire the bravery for openly mocking Hollywood. That aside, I also like the story and ending for it's simple entertainment value. Shooting an actor to unknowingly star in your film is an EXCELLENT and very funny premise.

My one and only issue with this movie is the abrupt beginning. I admire getting into the action very swiftly but I wish the opening was dragged out slightly longer to let us get to know the characters more. It feels like they just start abruptly and thus I wish they allowed some more setup time and slowed down the movie a little. Let me get to know these characters and learn their NAMES at least before the shenanigans ensue. That is my main issue with this movie.

Other than that minute flaw, this is a very fun, entertaining and joke heavy movie. The performances from our two leads are what drives the movie along and what keep it afloat. The script isn't bad but I don't think it would've worked NEARLY as well without Martin(yeah I know he wrote it) and Murphy in the leads. Their 'chemistry' and the way those characters react to the events on screen is a major selling point of the humour in this movie, and the majority of that comes down to the actors. It's a competently shot and edited movie so no complaints there. As a whole, I recommend this movie. It's very fun and has a high entertainment value. It's 100% worth a watch, in my honest opinion. I'll rate 'Bowfinger' 8 'Melty Faces' out of 10!

​'TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD' - 1962

Directed by Robert Mulligan

Starring Gregory Peck, Mary Badham and Phillip Alford

Plot Overview: ​Scout Finch (Mary Badham), 6,and her older brother, Jem (Phillip Alford), live in sleepy Maycomb, Ala., spending much of their time with their friend Dill (John Megna) and spying on their reclusive and mysterious neighbour, Boo Radley (Robert Duvall). When Atticus (Gregory Peck), their widowed father and a respected lawyer, defends a black man named Tom Robinson (Brock Peters) against fabricated rape charges, the trial and tangent events expose the children to evils of racism and stereotyping.

This might be a movie that I am just not understanding in the slightest. It may genuinely be a testament of cinematic perfection. But, as it stands, I was immensely disappointed by this movie. Is it a poor movie? No. Not at all. In fact, there is a portion of this movie that could stand as one of the greatest 'Acts' in Film history. But the meat surrounding this Act was very lacklustre and poor for me. I am very sad to say that 'To Kill A Mockingbird' disappointed me.

But what do I actually like about it? The portion between the first half and last 20 minutes was cinematic perfection. I am serious. I won't specifically say what happens but I will say that it is literally perfect. As for the film surrounding that part, that is a different story for me, but that does not detract from the masterful film making shown my the actors and Mulligan during that sweet, sweet 40 or so minutes.

I also loved Gregory Peck in this film. He delivers a heartfelt, slow and meaningful performance as Articus. You can really see a passion and intelligence lurking beneath his calm, steady and articulate demeanour. Peck well and truly deserved his Oscar for this outstanding performance.

Brock Peters was also incredible in his, unfortunately, minute role as Tom Robinson. Peters and the writers do excellent jobs in creating sympathy for this character and truly showing the injustice of the situation he finds himself in. I was very disappointed that he did not at least receive an Oscar nomination for this role; it was truly excellent.

Phillip Aldford was good as Jem. The character wasn't exactly likable or interesting but I do admire their attempt at giving him an arc. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Mary Badham's Scout for me. It baffles me as to how she earned an Oscar Nomination because I found her performance to be bland and very poor. And Scout as a character was also very disappointing. I mean, she wasn't likable, interesting and I fail to see a true arc for her.

Another flaw that I have with this film is the very mediocre beginning and end. The middle is, as stated prior, true cinematic gold. The remainder of the film is a dull, bland, uninteresting, monotonous mess. I fail to see the brilliance in it and, while the message of the film is strong and prosperous, the execution of it was not.

Then there is the very annoying ending. Maybe I am an idiot but I did not understand what was happening in the ending of this film. It was very confusing. I understand WHAT happened but I cannot fathom as to why. Perhaps my attention merely lapsed for those precious couple of seconds for the grand reveal but that doesn't change my distaste for it. That, and that man was absurdly creepy.

In conclusion, I was unfortunately disappointed by 'To Kill A Mockingbird'. It's not a bad movie by any means, and when it gets it right, it gets it right. But the overall package did not live up to the expectations I had. It was a little over average and the middle on its own would achieve an easy 10/10. Despite that claim, the middle was the middle, and it had the beginning and end bogging it down. Do see this film, though. The message is very important and it features an impeccable middle and performance from Gregory Peck. Aside from that though, it was not that great. I'll rate 'To Kill A Mockingbird' 7 'Creepy Men in the Corner' out of 10.

​'STAND BY ME' - 1986

Directed by Rob Reiner

Starring Wil Wheaton, River Phoenix, Corey Feldman and Jerry O'Connell

Plot Overview: ​After learning that a stranger has been accidentally killed near their rural homes, four Oregon boys decide to go see the body. On the way, Gordie Lachance (Wil Wheaton), Vern Tessio (Jerry O'Connell), Chris Chambers (River Phoenix) and Teddy Duchamp (Corey Feldman) encounter a mean junk man and a marsh full of leeches, as they also learn more about one another and their very different home lives. Just a lark at first, the boys' adventure evolves into a defining event in their lives.

It's become apparent of late that I've been watching movies based on Stephen King novellas. I've watched Misery, The Green Mile, 2017 It and now I've got to 'Stand By Me'. With the exception of perhaps 'The Shawshank Redemption', 'Stand By Me' is King's most celebrated film and has received plentiful amounts of critical praise. And after seeing it, I think it's okay. 'Stand By Me' is now means a bad movie and by Coming-Of-Age standards, it is pretty great. But I don't think it deserves the mass praise it receives. I still recommend that you see it because it's still a good film but I certainly don't think that it deserves the massive praise that it receives.

As far as pros go, I could name a few. I liked the performances, for a start. Wil Wheaton does a pretty good job as Gordie Lachance, as does his older counterpart Richard Dreyfuss, in narrating the story. Wheaton's peers, River Phoenix, Corey Feldman and Jerry O'Connell also do great jobs in bloating out the cast and making the characters come alive.

All the cast who played the bullies in the film also did excellent jobs.

I also really liked the fact that the story was character driven opposed to story driven. This made each of the character's arcs mean something more and elevated the characters from good to great. The actual story itself was pretty basic and could have used some more adjustments but the overall narrative was strong and engaging, thanks to the characters.

Honestly, I have no major flaws with this movie. Everything is at least semi decent but I just didn't enjoy it as much as everyone else did. It's fine but I can't see myself ever watching it again. It was entertaining while it lasted but even now as I am writing this, I am struggling to remember what exactly happened in any logical order. It's an unfortunately forgettable movie and, while I do recommend you see it, I don't really see the critical praise it has received. I'll rate 'Stand By Me' 7 'Dead Bodies' out of 10.

​'CASABLANCA' - 1942

Directed by Michael Curtiz

Starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Paul Henreid

Plot Overview: ​Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart), who owns a nightclub in Casablanca, discovers his old flame Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) is in town with her husband, Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid). Laszlo is a famed rebel, and with Germans on his tail, Ilsa knows Rick can help them get out of the country.

I know, I know. It's quite frankly atrocious that it has took me so long to see this film. I say that because Casablanca is a masterpiece of epic proportions. I genuinely don't think I could name a flaw with this gem of a movie. It is a masterpiece and well and truly deserves its spot on the Film Hall of Fame. If you haven't seen it, then I highly suggest you do.

So what do I like about it? The story was fascinating and interesting and intriguing in all senses of the world. And don't even get me started on that ending. That ending, which I of course won't spoil, is easily one of the greatest endings in cinema history. It is a testament to the magic a GOOD writer can make.

Humphrey Bogart was exceptional as Rick Blaine. I absolutely adore this performance and the character is also truly amazing. Words cannot describe the authenticity and skill that Bogart projects onto Blaine. It is a performance that deserves A LOT more recognition by the average movie goer.

Ingrid Bergman was, also, excellent as Ilsa. She didn't quite outdo Bogart in her performance but I would be lying if I didn't say she came pretty close. She manages to project so much emotion and trauma onto the audience in such a fascinating and spectacular manner.

As far as the supporting cast goes, they were also exceptional. Paul Henreid was excellent as Victor Laszlo and added a very interesting and intriguing character to the already riveting narrative. Claude Rains was excellent as Captain Renault and provided an excellent humorous backbone for the movie. He wasn't necessarily essential to the plot but he was essential to the tone and final product. Dooley Wilson was also excellent in his unfortunately short run as Sam. Truly amazing performances from each and every single member of the stellar cast.

For 1942, this movie is a technical wizard. The cinematography and editing were both incredible. The lighting is visually stunning and worked exceptionally well in the black&white environment. The music and sound effects were also excellent and the visual effects were truly admirable, especially considering the time at which they were created.

As a whole, 'Casablanca' is a masterpiece of a film and I can HIGHLY recommend it. As for flaws, I can not name a single one. It is a work of art and should be commemorated for its massive contribution to film and the art form. Please, if you have not, see this film; I assure you that it is worth your time. I'll rate 'Casablanca' 10 'Half a Thoughts' out 10!

'IT' - 2017

Directed by Andy Muschetti

Starring ​Bill Skarsgård, Jader Liebherer and Sophia Lillis

Plot Overview: ​Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare -- an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town's children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.

Right, let me start of by saying that.... wait for it... THIS MOVIE IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY! People are complaining that the film is bad because its funny. Oh, you don't think the JOKES were designed to make you laugh? That is the point of the jokes! The humour is what MAKES this movie so compelling. I've watched this film twice. Once with my sister and the other with some friends. And I loved it just as much both times. It's not gonna win any Oscars or change cinema forever but it's a fun, inventive comedic-horror movie with a couple effective scares and creepy scenes. What more do you actually want? Oh you do want more? Let me break it down why I love this movie so much.

Firstly, the impeccable cast. Every single member of the Loser's Club was cast to perfection and each child actor provides an adult- actor level of quality. I would normally condense them into one statement to converse space but each and everyone of them deserves their own praise. Jaeden Liebherer was absolutely fantastic as Bill Denborough. He sold the dark, troubled child in search of his younger sibling and provides an excellent leader for The Loser's Club. Jeremy Ray Taylor was excellent as Ben Hanscom. He was so likable and sells both the emotional and funny scenes to perfection. ​Sophia Lillis was phenomenal as Beverly Marsh. She struck a spectacular balance in performance between herself with the other Losers and herself not with them. Finn Wolfhard(greatest name ever btw) was excellent as Ritchie and was easily my favourite character in the film. He was so witty and funny and strangely likable. He was a primary source of comedy and he did is excellently. Jack Dylan Grazer was also excellent as Eddie Kasbrack. I really should have more to say about him but I don't really know what to say.

Wyatt Olef and Chosen Jacobs were both good as Stan and Mike respectively but I 100% need more from their characters in the sequel. They weren't utilised at all and they may as well have not even been there.

Then there is the man of the hour: Pennywise. ​Bill Skarsgård is both funny and terrifying. I understand that a lot of people won't find his portrayal of Pennywise to be all that frightening but I think he nails both aspects of the Clown perfectly. He was very funny when he needed to be and could be genuinely creepy and scary when he needed to be. I highly commend the man's performance.

I love the story of this movie. I love the story and the premise. It is such a fantastic idea. A clown that preys on your fears and eats kids? That is a horrifying concept but truly an excellent one. The story surrounding that was also great. You could argue that there isn't really much of a story, more of a knitted together collection of just barely connected scenes, and I understand where you would be coming from. That said, I personally think the story is about the underdogs overcoming their fears and fighting back against oppression. And that is a pretty excellent story in my opinion.

Then there are the visuals. It is a gorgeous movie and the cinematography and editing and stunning. I absolutely love the way this movie was shot, edited, lit and directed. It looks absolutely fantastic and is truly a treat for the eyes.

I am gonna defend an aspect of this movie that gets CONSTANTLY picked apart: the tone. 'It' is one part horror movie and one part comedy. The horror aspect is generally well done and has a lot of great buildup and some genuinely intense sequences. The comedy side is also excellently done and is pretty consistently in making the audience laugh. So what is wrong with it? Please explain to me what is wrong with the tone. Both sides of the movie work very well and I honestly think that Muschetti has blended the two together very well. I honestly think people are just complaining for the sake of complaining because there isn't much wrong with the tone. Is it irregular? Of course it is. But would you rather they try something new or stick to what they know. I don't know about you but I want innovation in my movies.

As for flaws, I can name one main one. The CGI wasn't the best. Obviously it looked decent occasionally but, for the overwhelming majority of effects, it looked cheap and lazy and fake. I rarely believed something was really there. I wish more time could have gone into making it look more realistic.

In conclusion, I loved this movie. It's fun, it's goofy and can be at times genuinely creepy and tense. It is an excellent movie so, even though I don't think it's the second coming of Christ, I can highly recommend 'It'. I'll rate 'It' 9 'Red Balloons' out of 10!

​'ANNABELLE: CREATION' - 2017

Direceted by Benjamin Walsfisch

Starring Tabitha Bateman, Lulu Wilson and Stephanie Sigman

Plot Overview: ​Former toy maker Sam Mullins and his wife, Esther, are happy to welcome a nun and six orphaned girls into their California farmhouse. Years earlier, the couple's 7-year-old daughter Annabelle died in a tragic car accident. Terror soon strikes when one child sneaks into a forbidden room and finds a seemingly innocent doll that appears to have a life of its own.

Horror movies are the worst thing is existence for me. Because if it is good and I feel scared, then I don't like it. I don't like that feeling. But if the movie is bad, then I just wasted time watching it. SO, I get NO pleasure from finishing a horror movie and therefore cannot stand them. I hate this movie. But that is because it is good. It is a genuinely creepy, and at times pretty scary, horror film that does what it says on the tin: makes me horrified. SO, I cannot stand this movie and will NEVER watch it ever again. But if you're THAT type of sicko, then please feel free to watch it.

For me, this movie has no positives. But the main one for horror fans will probably be the fact the movie is genuinely creepy. Walsfisch's impeccable use of musical cues and sound effects create a truly creepy and frightening experience. Music in this movie is probably the best thing I can say about it. The use of it throughout the first 2/3 of this movie is spectacular and it is used to the highest degree of effectiveness, to create an eerie, tense atmosphere. Truly excellent use of music.

As for other praise, the performances were also pretty great. In fact, I wouldn't say there was a single actor in this movie that disappointed me or was lacklustre, which is especially impressive when you consider the fact that most of the cast consists of children. Obviously, the stand outs are probably Tabitha Bateman's performance as Janice and Lulu Wilson's performance as Lidna. Both of these girls carried the movie for me and did excellent jobs. I commend both the girls for doing it to the standard that they did.

The cinematography and editing are also excellent. It is a gorgeous looking movie and provides some very impressive and visually interesting camera angles. Some cuts are used for cheap scares and that is not okay but this is used sparingly and the vast majority are just used to knit shots together.

As for flaws, the script comes to mind. Both the story and characters were very poorly written and crafted. Minimal effort was clearly put into these characters and you can really tell by the pure laziness and excessive lack of intriuge. The climax was also very weak and just threw a bunch of rubbish together in an attempt to scare the audience. Did it work? I am not denying that. But I scare easily so there is that. Despite this, the random mishmash of erratic plot threads and characters converging together makes the last act of this movie very dull and uninspired. That, and the characters are dumber than a brick wall. They are so stupid that words can not comprehend it. 'Sure, let's break the ONE rule the man who owns the CREEPY house COMMANDED and ORDERED us to ABIDE'. Jesus! Stop using stupid characters in horror movies! It ruins films!!!!!

But in conclusion, I recommend 'Annabelle: Creation' if you like horror movies. It has some effective scares and a very slow and gradual buildup of tension that, unfortunately, results in a weak and manufactured finale. But, the music, performances and cinematography are enough for me to recommend the movie. I'll rate it 7 'YOUR SOULS' out of 10!

'FARGO' - 1996

Directed by Ethan and Joel Coen

Starring William H Macey, Frances McDormand and Steve Buscemi

Plot Overview: ​In an attempt to fund an unknown project, Jerry Lundergaard(William H Macy) hired two criminals, Carl(Steve Buscemi) and Gaear(Peter Stromrare) to kidnap his wife and hold her for a million dollar random, against her incredibly wealthy father. But in the meantime, pregnant police chief Marge(Frances McDormand) is hunting the criminals for a crime they committed amidst the job.

My first taste of the Coen Brother's work was with a little movie called 'The Big Lebowski'. I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it was a brilliant 'joke' of a movie. Not in terms of quality but of content. After seeing 'The Big Lebowski', I began to hunger for seeing the remainder of their work. And thus I came onto this little gem of a movie. Fargo is, in my opinion, much better than The Big Lebowski and is a comedic crime story of epic proportions. If you haven't already seen it, I recommend you check it out!

But what is actually GOOD about the movie? Well, the story certainly springs to mind. From second one until the first name on the credits, Fargo gripped me and held me hostage on the edge of my seat. I was captivated by the events on screen and drawn deep into the mysterious and ingenious world, devised by the Coens. And while the statement about this being based on true events is a false one, it may as well have been true because the Coens do their absolute best to convince you that it is all the way through.

So what else was excellent? The performances? Yeah, I will agree with that. William H Macey delivers a truly amazing performance as Jerry Lundergaard and kept me entwined in his conniving scheme all the way until the end of the movie. Frances McDormand also does a sensational job as Marge and provides much of the backbone for which the movie rests on. McDormand is a relatively unknown actress in the film world(she was to me anyhow) but she proves that she deserves more recognition with her Oscar Worthy(and winning) performance. And then there is there is Stevie 'Slimeball' Buscemi. Whenever I see this guy speak or move in any of his roles, I get goosebumps. Whether that is a testament to his marvellous acting capabilities or his perverted face, I don't know. All I do know is that the man is an awesome actor and that is certainly no different here. Harve Presnell was also very good as Wade Gustafson.

Despite not saying much and having a minimal role, Peter Stromrae delivers a truly amazing performance and steals a lot of the scenes he is in. It was truly and incredible performance. I mean, I've admired the man in other roles, both in TV and film, but this is the first time he has genuinely amazed me and made me see his enormous potential as an actor. You probably think I am overselling him but I don't care.

Thirdly, the cinematography and editing are exceptional. Fargo is a fantastic looking movie and it is a visual treat. Even the costume and set designs look fantastic and well thought out. It is a very, very technically proficient movie.

If I was to say one flaw, it'd be that the ending wraps up a little too quickly. I think it was overly abrupt and maybe an extra 5 minutes would have done to let it settle and flourish. Maybe that is just me but that is honestly my main flaw with the movie.

In conclusion, I can wholeheartedly say that I recommend Fargo. The comedic moments intertwine with the dramatic moments perfectly. They fit like a glove and do nothing to take away from the movie. The story is great, the acting is exceptional, the visuals are gorgeous; what is NOT to like in such a well rounded and thought out movie? Well I've already told you one thing but I challenge thee to find another. I highly recommend this movie; I'll rate it 9 'YARS' out of 10!

'BLADE RUNNER' - 1982

Directed by Ridley Scott

Starring Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer and Sean Young

Plot Overview: Deckard (Harrison Ford) is forced by the police Boss (M. Emmet Walsh) to continue his old job as Replicant Hunter. His assignment: eliminate four escaped Replicants from the colonies who have returned to Earth. Before starting the job, Deckard goes to the Tyrell Corporation and he meets Rachel (Sean Young), a Replicant girl he falls in love with.

Let me start of by saying that I watched the Theatrical Cut of this movie. Not the Director's Cut or The Final Cut but the original cut that people saw in theatres back in 1982. And to be quite honest, I was disappointed. Perhaps my expectations were too high but I was just so disappointed by this film. Don't tell me that I need to watch The Final Cut to see the greatness in this film because that is redundant. The ORIGINAL Cut shown in theatres SHOULD be the best cut available so if they need to add to it then that is not right. Alas, I will try to watch The Final Cut and whatnot but if you think I'm being overly harsh or that I hated it, there is your answer. And I will stand by what I say.

Firstly, let me say that this is not a bad movie. By no means is it a bad movie. In fact, there isn't really anything offensively bad in the movie and pretty much everything works really well. For starters, it's a gorgeous looking movie. I won't lie when I say that Ridley Scott isn't my favourite director of all time and that I don't think he's the visual genius many paint him as. Alas, this is a beautiful movie. The visual effects, the sharp editing, the excellent cinematography, the rustic theme of costume and sets; all of this combines together to make a visual treat, and that is my greatest strength in this movie.

Next, the acting in this movie is great. Harrison Ford was pretty good as Deckard but I really don't think that this is even remotely his best role. He will always be Indiana Jones for me and nothing will ever change that BUT, I do definitely admire his performance in this. Then there is Rutger Hauer. Hauer delivers a truly exceptional performance and gives one of the better improvised monologues that I've ever seen. It IS an sensational performance and I give all credit for it to the actor, not Scott or the writing. Young was pretty good in the movie but I didn't connect to her in any way. In fact, I didn't really feel an emotional investment to any of the characters in this movie. None of them stood out as particularly well written and, while all the performances were good, none of them were that memorable. Hauer's character came the closest to being memorable but even his character was just above average.

The story and premise are also pretty decent. The ending is up for debate on it's 'greatness' but I found it okay. I wasn't particularly wowed by anything they did though. The world they setup was a very interesting one and I would look forward to visiting it again. But, the story surrounding this world was just alright. It wasn't that impressive and it was just kinda of okay. It was fine but that is all it was.

Perhaps I was overly critical of this movie. Perhaps. But if I've been told by the masses that this film will cure me, I fully expect it to. I do recommend this movie, however. It is a decent flick but I just really didn't connect to it on the level the masses did. I'll seek out The Final Cut and whatnot and try to watch them, and If my opinion changes I'll update the review. But apart from that, I didn't like the movie much. It looks nice, is well acted and has good world building but I just didn't care for it. Unfortunate really but I wont be revisiting this film anytime soon unless it is in the form of a different cut. I'll rate 'Blade Runner' 7 'Tin Foil Origami' out of 10, and I will recommend it; against my personal enjoyment levels. Purely because it is actually a solid film, I'll recommend it.

'PASSENGERS' - 2016

Directed by Morten Tyldum

Starring Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence and Michael Sheen

Plot Overview: ​On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim and Aurora face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.

I won't lie to you by saying that I was put off seeing this movie by the rotten tomatoes score. I know, I know - that score isn't the be all and end all of movie criticism but, considering I didn't care for the movie prior to seeing it advertised, I decided to see if most people saw it worth watching. And they of course did not. It was near universally panned by critics, but very warmly received by audiences. And I have to say that I stand firmly in the centre of the two. Passengers is a perfectly average, disposable movie. It's not good but it is not bad. It's not something you NEED to watch but I don't exactly discourage you from doing so. Were there moments that I enjoyed? Absolutely. I admire aspects of this film, but by the same token loathe others. Of course, I'll elaborate on that further along but what I will say is that this film may or may not be worth your time, watch the trailer and find out.

Let me begin with the positives. The visuals of this film. Any and all effects used in this film are pretty much breathtaking and look absolutely gorgeous. Then, there is the excellent cinematography. Editing could have used more refinement but it wasn't offensively bad. The set design of the ship was very interesting and I really liked it. It's no 'Nostromo' but it was still a very visually interesting ship.

Then we have the performances. No one in this movie does a poor job. In fact, all the performances range from above-average to good. Pratt was good as Jim as was Lawrence as Aurora. Michael Sheen was good as Arthur. All the performances in this movie were at least good and none of them were bad. But the problem wasn't with the acting, it was with the chemistry, writing and character development. None of the relationships were refined and none of them felt natural. It just felt so manufactured and contrived. And manufacturing emotion NEVER works in a film!

My other main flaw with the movie was the entirety of the last act. I actually enjoyed the first 2 acts of this movie. They were at least entertaining. But, without spoilers, I thought the last act of this movie was so dumb and over the top. It was so utterly disappointing and they could've done so, so much more with it.

As a whole, I wasn't a huge fan of passengers. It wasn't good but it also wasn't bad. I don't regret seeing it but I'm sure I could've spent my time more wisely. It's a film that just does not deliver for me. If it interests you, then please watch it; you may very well enjoy it. I watched it out of morbid curiosity(and it was free). Watch it if it interests you but if it doesn't then you don't need to. I'll rate 'PASSENGERS' 5 'Bartender Tricks' out of 10!

​'DETROIT' - 2017

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

Starring John Boyega, Will Poulter and Algee Smith

Plot Overview: ​In the summer of 1967, rioting and civil unrest starts to tear apart the city of Detroit. Two days later, a report of gunshots prompts the Detroit Police Department, the Michigan State Police and the Michigan Army National Guard to search and seize an annex of the nearby Algiers Motel. Several policemen start to flout procedure by forcefully and viciously interrogating guests to get a confession. By the end of the night, three unarmed men are gunned down while several others are brutally beaten.

It's hard to review a film that is so harrowing and depressing. Such a barbaric and disgusting event requires the utmost of a care and compassion and empathy, and I think that Bigelow nails it. Detroit is such a hard to watch and upsetting film, that I couldn't watch it multiple times but that shouldn't represent the quality. It is a truly amazing movie that deserves the Oscar buzz it's getting. I definitely recommend it, just be preferred to squirm.

Representing such a tale on screen in a semi-entertaining way(I don't mean fun) while simultaneously being respectful and poetic to the night's events is a very difficult task. And honestly, the movie may have worked better as simply a documentary. But we got a movie, and it was really good so I'm not complaining. The story for this movie is a very harsh and upsetting one, and Bigalow/the writers deal with it in the most perfect way possible. I agree with the criticism that they don't delve into WHY it happened, but I'm just happy this event was brought to modern day audiences, and those of us in the UK, who didn't study this event(not myself but others I know). Great movies that are hard to watch are things of rarity. I'm not talking about 'Saw' or whatever, that's just disgusting and hard to watch. I'm talking films that make you uncomfortable for watching them purely because of the sadness and barbaric nature of the events. That sums this movie up. I rarely squirm or avert my eyes in a film like this but for sequences in this movie, I found it challenging to not do so. Watching is difficult for points in this movie but I think that should merely serve as credit for what Bigalow has created.

Now, for the performances. This movie is an ensemble cast and every single main performer does a fantastic job. Most notably, however, would probably include the likes of John Boyega, Anthony Mackie, Will Pouler and Algee Smith. While every single actor does an amazing job and draws you deeper into the world(that is unfortunately ours) that Bigalow has 'created', these four were the main ones that stood out and were memorable for me after the movie had gone of.

This is pretty much the first movie I've seen that features Boyega(because I don't like Star Wars. This review'll get marked down purely for this comment I guarantee it) and after seeing him perform, I'm shocked he's not in more movies. The man was excellent in this movie.

Anthony Mackie, who is perhaps most well known as 'Falcon' from the MCU, shows a different side of him that I hadn't seen before and does it masterfully. He provides such a deep and harrowing performance that I very much so hope that he appears in more dramatic roles, and doesn't get stuck in a 'Goofy sidekick' typecast.

Will Poulter, formerly known as 'Eye Brows Kid', is also in this movie as a corrupt cop. And corrupt is the key word. Poulter is despicable, disgusting and destructive in his role as Krauss, and that really just shows how remarkable the performance is. I hated this guy from second one and he doesn't disappoint that initial expectation all the way through the 2 hour run time.

And then there is Algee Smith. The performance Smith gave was exceptional. I mean exceptional. The man stood out among everyone else and delivered a powerful performance. I commend the performance and truly believe that he should be given a round of applause because he was so, so good in this film.

The cinematography and editing are also excellent in this movie. It is a very good looking movie. I love the grittiness and grimness that make it feel like a dystopian future, which is what it was for African-Americans at the time. I do love how Bigalow has directed this movie.

As for flaws, I'll say that the opening third of this movie drags on way too long and is very dull. The setup for this film is done for what feels like an eternity and they REALLY could have cut chunks of it out. That is honestly my only flaw with the movie because, apart from that, it is pretty great. I can definitely recommend it but be prepared to feel uncomfortable. It's not for the faint of heart. I'll rate Detroit 9/10.

'LOGAN LUCKY' - 2017

Directed by Steven Soderbergh

Starring Channing Tatum, Adam Driver and Daniel Craig

​ Plot Overview: After he gets fired from a job, Jimmy Logan(Channing Tatum) hatches a plan with his brother, Clyde Logan(Adam Driver) and demolitions expert Joey Bang(Daniel Craig) to rob the Charlotte Motor Speedway. But as the 'Logan Family Curse' looms over him and his brother, naturally things don't go as smoothly as they could have.

Steven Soderbergh is a director who hasn't achieved much mainstream success. His work is typically very artsy and are 'films' rather than 'movies#'. Perhaps the closest he's achieved to mainstream success in with his Ocean's Trilogy. And they were exceptionally fun and entertaining movies. From the trailer, I was wrongfully led to believe this would be in the vain of the Ocean's Trilogy, a fun, quirky, perhaps less glamorous, heist movie. But this was a wrongful accusation. I will explain why further on but I think it's fair to appreciate some of the film's strengths.

Firstly, the cinematography. Soderbergh movies always look fantastic and are visual treats. The editing in this movie is pretty much flawless and every camera angle feels important. This is perhaps the film's greatest strength but that seems redundant considering it is likely trying to appeal to mass audiences. Obviously, critics and film enthusiasts and sad, lonely people who analyse every shot of a movie for hidden meanings will adore that in this movie*. And I fall into the second of the three categories. I do admire the cinematography and editing BUT it wasn't what I went into this movie expecting. I expected escapism but instead got a homework assignment.

Easily the second greatest strength of the movie is Daniel Craig. The man is an acting machine and he succeeds in delivering an incredible performance in this movie. He steals every single scene he is in and is an all around pleasure to watch. Channing Tatum and Adam Driver, while good in the movie, are only really the supporting cast to Craig. This is his movie and without him it would fall flat on its face. He's the only remotely interesting or semi-likable character, and without him - the movie fails spectacularly.

My biggest flaw with this movie is how much I was mislead. All I wanted was a couple hours escapism in a fun, goofy heist movie in the vain of the Ocean's Trilogy with an ensemble cast I really enjoy. But I didn't get that. It isn't the laugh-out-loud comedy the trailers led me to believe but instead a rather dull and monotonous series of unfortunate events that miraculously lead to a dull and monotonous conclusion. I think every film fan will agree that part of the fun of seeing a heist movie is seeing how they pulled it off. That is what I look forward to in a heist movie: the conclusion. But the conclusion in this movie is so lacklustre and the grand reveal so contrived and forced that I just did not care in the slightest for it.

If you want a fun movie, don't watch this boring yet artistic waste of time. If you want to analyse a movie, frame by frame, then please feel free to do so and enjoy this movie for what it is: a technical piece of art. But those in the latter of the two camps will most likely be the only people who enjoy this movie. The trailers are misleading, the characters are mostly subpar and the grand reveal is ultimately disappointing. I don't recommend this movie overall and I'll rate it an extremely disappointing 5 'Family Curses' out of 10.

* If you do fall into this category, it was a joke. Don't get angry at me.

'THE SHINING' - 1980

Directed by Stanley Kubrick

Starring Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall and Danny Lloyd

Plot Overview: ​Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) becomes winter caretaker at the isolated Overlook Hotel in Colorado, hoping to cure his writer's block. He settles in along with his wife, Wendy (Shelley Duvall), and his son, Danny (Danny Lloyd), who is plagued by psychic premonitions. As Jack's writing goes nowhere and Danny's visions become more disturbing, Jack discovers the hotel's dark secrets and begins to unravel into a homicidal maniac hell-bent on terrorising his family.

When the author of the work that your movie is based on says the film is bad, it obviously is, right? Wrong. I love Stephen King but I cannot comprehend how he despises THIS film, off all his adaptations. Is it faithful? Probably not. Is it any good? Absolutely. This is one of Kurbicks(many) masterpieces of cinema and I cannot comprehend King's dislike of the movie. I guess it's each to their own but I think he was being overly critical in his review of this movie. It's a chilling horror movie and I HIGHLY recommend that you check it out.

But what about it, makes it great? Well Jack Nicholson's Oscar Worthy performance comes to mind. And while it may not be entirely authentic to King's novel, the performance Nicholson provides is eerie, chilling and horrifying, and is one of the primary strengths of the movie. What else can you say about it other than all work and no play make Jack a dull boy?

Another performance in this movie that is also sensational is Danny Lloyd as Jack Torrance's son, coincidentally also called Danny. Pretty weird that Nicholson plays a character called Jack and Lloyd plays a character called Danny. Coincidence? I think not! But anyhow, for a child actor, Lloyds provides a genuinely unsettling and bone chilling performance that just seeing him puts me on EDGE. That is a credit to the excellent script(more on that later), Kubrick's direction(more on that later) and Lloyd's sensational performance(more on tha- oh wait). I cannot commend Lloyd enough for giving such a great role, especially considering he was working for a madman. What. Even geniuses can be deluded, uncompromising and insane.

Remember that script I mentioned? Yeah? Well it is excellent. Whether or not it's a faithful adaption I couldn't care less. The bleak setting is chilling. The slow descent into madness and brief hints of insanity that arise to the surface as the movie bubbles along. The slow, compelling arcs for each of the characters. Even the absolutely genius dialogue and writing. Anything that is related to the script(so everything) is perfect and incredible, and I absolutely loved it.

And remember that man with the funny name? Kubrick? Yes that's the one. That psychopath? Yep him. But that psychopath is also a genius and wizard of camera-work. This movie looks stunning. The stark contrast and repetition of the colour red. Tracking shots. Impeccable editing. Marvellous camera angles. Every single frame of this movie comes together to make one of arguably the greatest looking movies ever made. Anyone who denies that Kubrick is a God of cinematography is kidding themselves because the man is a genius in that department. And a total lunatic in others.

If I could say I have one flaw with this movie. It's Shelley Duvall. And she is what drags this movie down to a 9. Her performance and direction boiled down to wimper and look sad. There is nothing groundbreaking or compelling in her performance. Not one second of her being on screen grabbed me or made me care for her. She was just a bland, boring, character with a overly dramatised, silly performance. Kubrick may have pushed Duvall a little TOO hard on this one.

Aside from that one little indiscretion, this movie is fantastic. The acting(for the most part), the story, the cinematography; it all blends together to create one of the most incredible and haunting horror movies ever made. Not a single frame is wasted and not a single line of dialogue to be ignored. It is a masterpiece on all accounts except one and I can highly recommend this movie to anyone. I'll rate it a close to perfect 9 'Heeeere's Johnny's' out of 10!