Reviews

It's fun. So much fun. So much so that it puts all previous DC films to shame. Ok. Shazam was decent enough, but I ain't a 13 year old anymore. Gunn delivers a carbon solid piece of fun action flick that's even surprisingly touching at times. It's fun. And not in a complete braindead way either, though there are some misplaced antics. But even then it's fun and therefore easily forgivable.

I went in expecting some mindless yet entertaining action comedy, but discovered soon enough that it was a formulaic, over manufactured, uninspired, full on braindead, cliché ridden piece of flick. I know it was supposed to be exactly that. The garbage was too well handled to be a mistake. However the overthetopness was a bit too much for me to be enjoyable. I know for certain I have at least one braincell left and it didn't appreciate the stupidity of the film. If you're already a few years out of high school, I doubt this film is for you.

Last time I was so bored out of my mind watching an action flick was when I saw Max Payne - a film I remember nothing about. Besides Wahlberg being in it. Boss Level seems to be similar case. Except Frank Grillo actually fits in the role and is great at what he does. Unfortunately most everything else falls flat. The action is cheap (at times with bad B-movie level CG) and uninspiring, The pacing is all over the place. The overly long and pointless conversations give little value and try too hard to come across smart. And fail. Everything is so simple and comes easily to the MC (plot armor wise). Constant V. O. exposition is inane and unnecessary. One would think they'd even do some basic research what can be considered as e-sports or classic 80's computer games. Brr. Go watch Nobody instead. It's better in every single aspect and ten times over.

Pixar's movies used to tick all the boxes. Including the ones that were out of the box. That's why people from all ages enjoyed their work. These days, though not exactly soulless, that little "extra" seems to be missing.

At times Onward is funny and heartwarming, it has an original setting and overall there's not much bad to say about it. Yet it's pretty forgettable. It was alright for a first time viewing but I'd definitely wouldn't sit through it again. Perhaps younger audience enjoys it more.

If you can get past that absurdly poor attempt at CGI, then maybe you're capable of believing that the thing that looks like a dog, might almost resemble one (albeit with no reproductive organs whatsoever).

I made a mistake and didn't watch the trailer. (Trailers tend to bore me more often than not.) I walked out from the theatre about 15 minutes in. I just couldn't swallow what I was being fed any longer. So, I'm only judging the film based on the "dog".

However, the poor CGI creature wasn't perhaps even its biggest fault. But. If you combine that with the filmmaker's (who've apparently never seen a real canine before) idea of a dog, you get this eerily anthropomorphic disneyesque product designed for six-year-olds'. The bottom line is: this is not how dogs behave. No matter how intelligent they may be.

Why wasn't it adapted into a straight animation? This, as it is, does not work for me. Insult to anyone who owns a dog. Or rather - to all the dogs.

Can't help but be somewhat disappointed. For me it was a little more than a character study well executed by two brilliant actors with excellent cinematography. It dragged on, the story seemed to be all over the place because of strained and dull symbolism crammed in and the ending was just a joke. It was an artwork that, although beautiful, felt annoyingly artificial and lacked consistency. I think it didn't quite know what it was supposed to be. Especially when laced with all that mythology that managed to underperform yet feel overused at the same time. But yeah. Well executed by Dafoe and Pattinson, but that can only take it to so far.

I suffered through the two hours of it, fuming. This is a kids movie without a saving grace. There's no moral to the story or anything to learn from it that usually goes with all the dreadfully annoying stuff aimed at children.

The kids just walk from one place to the other, sometimes the bad guys pop out and do their bad guy stuff, kids move on, baddies appear, kids move on, and so on until the end. There is no character development, no specific goals (besides survival) throughout most of the film. And even when one goal (reaching to one specific destination) presents itself, they decide not to pursue it but wait around because the baddies have to show up at the critical moment, and even though we have nothing better to do we should wait for them just in case.

We learn nothing from the film except how not to make a film. The kids might be satisfied just watching bunch of other kids walking around in the woods, but I'm not. That's not what makes a good film.

I'm not even going to discuss the logic behind casting a fat boy (besides comic relief) who's supposed to have been living in the woods, scavenging for food, without managing to lose weight. Or the blind kid's ability to walk like a normal person (in the woods and on the rough terrain), or his need to decorate his staff (which he does not know to use) or having a pair of nice clean glasses or how quickly the girl forgets witnessing the murder of his father and etc etc.

Though it was painful to watch, there was no gain. The film's not entirely braindead but I wouldn't recommend it if your brain still functions. However as the film might contain scenes that can be scarier for younger kids, I can't recommend it even for ten year olds.

One of the stronger aspects of the film is definitely the visual look, but that's about it. The plot is shallow and doesn't really hold together. The idea itself might seem ridiculous, and it is, but it could've even been believable if done slightly differently. Maybe even if portraying a blind person would've been at least halfway decent. Here the blind assassin seems to behave more in the vein of a supernatural Matt Murdock than as an ordinary, blind, middle aged, middle eastern man.

As the film stands, it seems like a silly re-imagining of Léon (1994) or a fan fiction inspired by it. Unfortunately it possesses almost none of the qualities nor charm of it's legendary counterpart. The film is a cheap copy of noirish action, trying so hard to be stylish but forgetting what it should be all about. Perhaps that's the result of working mainly on commercials, as is the case with the director Christoph Gampl.

Even though it has many shortcomings I'm positive the film will appeal to some. It's not inherently a bad production, just a bit lacklustre mix of everything that doesn't necessarily work together.

Knives Out is a whodunit and hosts a plethora of interesting characters who remain within the roles of the genre's archetypes but doesn't become cheap tropes. The various twists and turns do not feel forced and everything has its place. One might say it fits together like a puzzle. Thoroughly entertaining from start to finish

The film isn't bad, just forgettable. It has it's moments but all in all they feel trivial. Perhaps it's the story - a very simplistic modern fairy-tale - that makes it feel shallow. Though I liked the characters I didn't really care for them, and because of that quite a few scenes felt tedious. Actually even stopped watching the trailer for the film the day before, because it was so boring that started to wonder if the trailers have to be so long. 30-60 seconds should be enough to give a glimpse. Anyway. Still went to see the film because, you know, Linklater. Didn't really feel like his work though.

The first season of 'Stranger Things' was scarier than this. And the two seem to have quite a few things in common. However, while ST can entertain a wider generational audience, Scary Stories... seem to be aimed only at teens. Which is fine. I just wished I was warned about it earlier.

Overall the film is bland, generic and cliche ridden to the bone. Not even sure what I was doing more often, yawning or rolling my eyes. Just because it's a "horror" film doesn't necessarily have to mean that it has to be dumb.

If you're 13 years old, you might get a kick out of it, but even then you'll most likely forget soon enough ever seeing that film.

So. Apparently there are a lot of people quite unhappy about the way the book was adapted. Now, I haven't read it, so I'm willing to give it the benefit of a doubt and perhaps it might contain something resembling at least a half decent story. Be it as it may, it seems that Spielberg chose to settle with the most crass and cliched aspects and run with them. The film is littered with menial 80s references. Seems like in the 2050s time is on a standstill and nothing relevant has happened for about half a century. However, even the more numerous than the references, are the plot holes, but I'll let that slide because otherwise I'd never finish writing this. Suffice to say the film is held together by the swarm of plot holes and convenient coincidences.

Acting is forgettable but that's understandable. All things considered. Situations and dialogue do not lend themselves to great moments. So once again. Would mainly blame poor writing on this one, than the actors and actresses themselves.

Visually it's alright, I guess. Though there are a lot of questionable decisions. The future does not really seem like the future. The OASIS does not really seem like an advanced VR computer program. And the people running around in the streets, in the real life, while wearing VR headsets is straight out moronic, but the bright colours, flashing lights and empty action scenes should keep the kids in their seats, chewing their popcorn.

The overall film direction, moods, "plot twists" and characters are all just so bland, generic and manufactured, that it's tough to care about the characters and their "problems". It makes me question how much Spielberg really spent time on the project. Especially considering that 'The Post' came out a few months earlier. Which wasn't all that great either but should definitely have higher score on IMDb than 'Ready Player One'. At least it seems that Metacritic agrees with that as well.

Bottom line is that the film has nothing to offer. Nothing good anyway. It's mindless and did I mention that it's full of story breaking plot holes? But what does it matter right? There's a good guy who likes a girl and he does some action stuff and beats the evil dude because there's always the unnecessarily evil dude and in the end he gets the girl and everyone lives happily ever after and that's all what what you really want so you just don't care how badly it's all presented.

Maze Runner: The Death Cure

I haven't seen the first two films. Not that it really matters. I just didn't really know what to expect. So I was hoping for some moderately adequate post-apocalyptic sci-fi fantasy film. Boy was I wrong. All I got was moronic garbage in pretty much all the colours of the spectrum.

The story was basic, not to say primitive. You want to pretend you can see the future? Go see that film because everything that you think is going to happen, is going to happen. Perhaps books were written better and offered some details that made it readable, but watching it offered me no pleasure, because to suspend disbelief I can look past WHY things are happening on the screen, but not HOW they are happening. For example, I am willing to believe that a kid can take out, with a handgun, from a considerable distance, several trained combat units armed with assault rifles, returning the fire to no success, but there better be a dogdamned reason to show for it. The dialogue is vile and riddled with every kind of cliché you've ever heard. AND seen. Characters shallow and show no real progression. Causality is non-existent, everything happens because the script says so.

And this does not even scratch the surface of the tip of the iceberg. The stupidity of the scenes is mind blowing. I'd hate to think that it's so because the film aimed at teens. I can only blame the director Wes Ball for having balls to think this is OK. The film is not even mindless, it's an outright attack against a functioning cerebral process. Which, maybe, for a teen doesn't really matter all that much because they don't know any better. But a film director should. You shouldn't talk down to children just because it's an easy way out. All it shows is that the film doesn't matter. That the film makers didn't care. No one will remember this film in years to come. This film is an insult. Kill it with fire.

Darkest Hour

I wonder if anyone's heard anything about that story before. Is it real? Yes? How real is it? Does it matter? Pretty much everything in the film is overshadowed by the performance of the majesty that is Gary Oldman. So much so that it's even nominated for the Oscar Award in Best Achievement in Cinematography, though it has its fair share of "mishaps". Anyway. Back to the screenplay, which, once again, as it's a "based on" production, takes perhaps certain liberties that are somewhat difficult to swallow in the form of inane scenes and moments that would be (are) cringe worthy if not for the great acting.

Oldman is spectacular and like some have said - it's a one man show. Which it's true. Not to lessen others, well established members of the cast, who are also great, but it just goes to show the magnitude of Oldman's performance and pretty much just because of that, it's a film worth watching.

All in all, the general set design, costumes and make up are to be praised. However, the camera work is way over the top at times and goes overboard with the extravagant behaviour. Unnecessarily so. It did not help the storytelling, if anything, it diminished it and the general effort put in the rest of the film's CGI budget. Definitely not something worth giving an Oscar for.

Directing wise, if you've seen Joe Wright's earlier work, you pretty much know what you can expect. He does a decent job, but it rarely touches the ceiling. And though Darkest Hour is enjoyable for the most part, the aforementioned issues cripple the story. It seems like director himself was on the point were he had to choose and unfortunately he chose to give in. Perhaps it makes the story more cinematic. One could argue. But it definitely didn't make it dark enough.

There will always be issues regarding stories based on historical facts and/or events, no matter how well told. The more details from the past there are, the more difficult the task. That of course if you decide not to do just a re-enactment for a documentary perhaps. There's always a threat of over glorifying the main characters because they're the good guys. So there is a forced perspective. Now. If they'd made the film from a different perspective, say, Robert McNamara, there would be completely dissimilar feel to it. However, leaving that aside, no matter the historical accuracy, the story itself was well told. Though the beginning seemed to lag a bit, it gained and kept the momentum later on.

Acting was, for the most part, in check with the reality, though perhaps not necessarily realistic per se. Not to say the acting was bad or even mediocre. No. The team, most all decorated veterans, are professionals in the field, to say the least. There are some moments of greatness, but those are maybe too fleeting, because though the situation is tense, it's still somewhat mundane considering the job of being in the news business. The main problem with the characters seem to be that they're all somewhat chameleons and everyone is a little bit of everything - a bit of a common person, a bit of a celebrity, a working person, an idealist etc. And they shift within those parameters and therefore become bit of a blur so that even though they're the good guys, you still perhaps don't quite root for them as one should. There are still a few somewhat more emotional scenes which come out thanks to the prowess of the cast.

Visually there's very little to complain about. The setting and costumes and props are all authentic. Colour grading is very well done and the overall texture of the film helps to get into the feel of the period. The musical score supports the scenes and adds to the atmosphere and tension. It's not over done though isn't necessarily to my liking in the sense of style.

Spielberg's done great job, but it ain't 'Schindler's List'. Then again you can't really compare these two in that sense. You watch it and most likely will enjoy it and perhaps even learn a thing or two, but I do not see this film as one that will be brought out as a great example for the generations to come. As a film I mean. What concerns history, we are damn quick to forget. It's even somewhat ironic that 'The Post' and '12 Strong' are both in the cinemas right now.

The Scythian

The story is fit for epic proportions, for the bards to sing songs and elders to tell tales for generations to come. Though perhaps predictable at times, it's a classic, in the sense of such myths as Jason and the Argonauts or even Odysseus for example. It is perhaps shadowed a little by somewhat forced dialogue at times. I am not entirely convinced though as I'm not that adept at Russian and don't know how solid or accurate were the subtitles, so the fault may lie in that as well.

Acting seems to fit for the most part. Nothing that feels overly awkward. As they are the men of action, they let their fists and daggers and swords and bows and axes do the talking for the majority of the film. The lead seems out of place occasionally and I can't put my finger on it why exactly, but it's really not a that big of a concern because the decent pace will not allow to linger on any particular scene too long.

Visually it has good with the bad. Set design and costumes are on point for the most part and feel authentic, but some the locations seem off. Fighting scenes and camerawork are quite well done, though editing seems a bit flimsy at times and therefore some key moments might fall a bit short. Literally even. Unfortunately it also seemed to be yet another retelling of not just the times when the men were Men, but when ugly was Ugly and beautiful was Beautiful. Which is pretty much every film since the invention of camera. A minor issue of course and most likely goes with the mythic theme, but still.

Music fits well and helps to emphasize the scenes, sound mixing is enjoyable though, and it might be the language barrier again, I think I detected some syncing issues, but it might totally be my own imagination. Otherwise the scenes' and scenic atmosphere is well created.

The adventure is engaging and despite some missteps, you'll enjoy the ride. The action is satisfyingly brutal and better than in many Hollywood's high budget projects. Perhaps mostly because the executives aren't as greedy to force PG-13 ratings on just to cash in slightly more dough. Irrelevant, but I bet that The Dark Tower, for example, would've produced completely different results without these utterly stupid restrictions. But I digress.

It's not going to be the best film of the year, but you will enjoy it. Perhaps even enough to watch it again sometime, should you catch it from the telly. It is a solid effort. The pace will carry you through before you know it. Perhaps even leaving you longing for more.

The Commuter

Story is a bit. Well. What do you expect? It's a full on action flick. Though it has some redeeming moments, a few clever twists or turns can't save it from the banality that it promises (and delivers). To clarify, there are more not-quite-so-clever twists.

Acting is okay. Though as of late, Liam seems to be doing mostly more action oriented projects for some reason, he has skills that he's acquired over a decently long career and know how to use them. Even if he has to play roles as inane as principled ex cop with money troubles on a train. His co stars, or co passengers, pull something around their own weight. They play their parts as they are, they're not really playing characters, with little time (or need) for development. The jerk is a jerk, the teenage girl is a teenage girl, the random friend is a random friend etc.

Visually the film is laughable at times. It's not Scorpion King level bad, but the CGI is terrible. On the plus side, those moments add to fun. I guess. Also the camerawork tends to go overboard for no reason other than... I don't know. It looks cool? It might've if they wouldn't have mixed it with bad CGI. These sort of things tends to happen when you've got nothing to show. Fight screens are decent(ish).

Sound or music wise I'm trying to remember if there is anything to comment. I can't think of anything so I'm putting it on the plus side. Emotions and atmosphere seem written, not to say forced.

The director Jaume Collet-Serra was either offered a lot of money to do this or he is also very principled and does not negotiate with terrorists. He should, however, make an exception and try to negotiate with the producers, because this could've been a totally different kind of film. But everybody likes fireworks I guess. Even if they don't mean anything. Because they mostly don't. So you forget them soon after.

Downsizing

There seem to be people who care about people and people who don't want to understand people. The latter are bigoted and small at the same time. They are blind for what they want and what they want is insignificant. So without much further ado.

The story is not about what you think it is about. If you haven't seen it yet. Not going into detail because spoilers abound and this one is worth watching the first time without knowing nothing about the film. Helps to avoid unnecessary expectations which seems to trouble some of the viewers. Suffice to say the story is original, witty, funny and heart warming. If you've liked Alexander Payne's earlier work, you will most definitely enjoy this one as well. Dialogue is borderline genius at times. If not.

Acting wise I'm not sure if Matt Damon was the best casting choice, because contrary to his profession (in the film) he can come across a little too stiff or wooden at times. the if it is intentional, perhaps a lesser star (not to say smaller) would've been better. And while being the biggest star, he is undeniably shadowed by his co stars. Then again Christopher Waltz just shines too bright. Wonder how many watts Waltz is? Sorry.

Visuals are charming. Camera work is solid and helps to forward the story, editing organic and smooth with little to complain about. Occasional issues with the scale ratios in comparison with actors/objects and the background are secondary and dismissible. Special effects are mostly very well done and explosions, funnily enough, are second to none.

Sound helps to carry the atmosphere and situations. Emotionally it's not necessarily a roller-coaster, but it has its own spectrum that vibrates mostly in the humorous zone. Slightly damp or teary eyes are not improbable.

The film could've gone in so many directions, but I am really pleased with the route Payne took. Human relations are kind of his thing and I think that some of the negative reviews are really blown out of the proportions (see what I did there), just because they wanted it to be a different kind of film. I figure most people just wanted to see small people doing small people stuff and that would be fun because they're small, but that is a very limited way of looking at things. Payne paints a bigger picture. I guess some are just too small to grasp that.

Death of Stalin

AKA how to tell the story of human greed so that it's entertaining and revolting at the same time. AKA if history books/teachers would tell things even slightly as colourfully as this, more people would pay attention.

The story is very well presented. Artistic liberty is backed by major facts. Dialogue is witty and fuels the situations in which most of the humour lies. And most of everything is in contrast with everything. People are in contrast with each other and with themselves and with humanity. The story takes some really grim turns at times. Quite unexpectedly so. It kind of cheats you to think it's a more light hearted piece of work than it actually is. It's not. That also is a form of contrast.

Acting leaves little to be desired. Though the pronunciations of some of the names can perhaps be a bit of a put off. For people with a little more knowledge in Russian language than vodka, medved i babuschka. Luckily they don't over use the names and convincing acting makes it more than even. At first I didn't even think that Steve Buschemi is fit (as in necessary shape) to play Khrushchev, but at the end I had no doubt that he was the perfect choice. The rest of the cast is excellent as well. Beria is as intimidating and repulsive as one can imagine. Perhaps Stalin's son is the biggest question mark, because he was straight out of control and can therefore seem a bit too theatrical than perhaps necessarily comfortable without it actually being so.

Visuals are decent. Definitely not great, and the budget reflects that, but then again the focus is completely on something else. Camera movement is nicely put to work to help the story. Some nice plays with the use of perspective. General tone and the pace of editing fits the purpose.

Directing is nuanced and well thought out. I wouldn't say that the film is hilarious, however. Not many films are, in my opinion. It's funnier in some places, more sinister in others. Humorous for the most part. But hilarious, no. That would be too much of a contrast perhaps. Too much of a grotesque. Too horrifying to laugh out loud from the beginning to the end. Only a complete moron or someone with complete disregard for humanity would do that. Because, though this is just a film, what happened, really happened. And I am not talking about what is seen, but what is not. Armando Iannucci walks a fine line, makes a statement, leaves us entertained and gives us something to ponder about.

Call Me by Your Name

Another not another love story. Beautifully told. Simple enough to follow, yet complicated enough to experience. Dialogue can be a bit sappy at times, but I guess that is a side effect of love rather than just bad writing. Nevertheless it feels stupid. Other times it can be a bit too vague. The dialogue. As well as what's currently happening. These are mostly minor issues though.

Acting is great. Perhaps even slightly over done for the main character. Not in a bad way though. Perhaps they just wanted to show him off. Switching between 3-4 languages, playing guitar and piano with ease that'd make Rachmaninov blush; scribing music, reading tons of books and looking like a teenage Greek god in the process, is too good to be true. Relations between people feel natural and organic and most part realistic. Or lets say believable rather than realistic.

The visual style and tone is smooth and gentle. Fitting well with the general flow of the film. Setting feels authentic and fit for the period. The countryside is as dreamy as everyone.

The soundtrack, concerning the pop music, is brilliant. Did not care too much about the piano score in some parts. Though there is piano played in the film, the piece playing in the background at times, did not seem to fit.

Pace seems to limp on occasion, but is not a major concern. There aren't too many obvious mistakes, but the scene where they pick up a freshly found archaeological artefact like it's just a random stick, is mind-blowing. Overall, Luca Guadagnino does a great job in portraying love without the usual drama and still maintains interest. It's easy to destroy innocence, much harder to retain, but the film succeeds. And his love looks a lot like love. And love doesn't care who you are.

12 Strong

Story was ordinary. Nothing you haven't seen thousand times before. Pretty straightforward from the beginning till the end, but it worked. Dialogue was mostly sharp and clever, with a few missteps here and there. As it was yet another "based on a true story" there were moments, quite a few, that felt way overly glorified. Artificial even. But perhaps that was a necessary evil to create more meaning for characters. Which, speaking about the devil, brings me to the compulsory over the top villain, because bad guys have to be maxed out on all aspects of vile behaviour.

Acting was solid for the most part. Great cast all around. Hemsworth pulls his weight and the team follows. At times even blindly, which is fine, because the enemy (because they're bad) shoot like stormtroopers. However, the next time I'd recommend taking more cover, and wearing a helmet couldn't hurt either. Perhaps they're too pretty and wanted to show it off?

Which brings me to visuals. Action was engaging and tense, nothing bad to say about that. Some key explosions felt a little flat though. Camerawork was enjoyable. Nothing too fancy and therefore unnecessary. No crazy "shaky cam" during the chaotic battle scenes, but a mandatory shell-shock sequence, which seemed a tad too familar.

The score and sound is decent. Both serving their purpose, but don't really go that extra mile. In a film such as this there probably isn't any need to. Unless one likes to challenge themselves to find out exactly how many guns are firing all at once during a scene or a take. If that's even possible. No memorable song to listen to when riding into a battle either. Well. It really wouldn't be much of a covert operation, crawling between the rocks, "Valkyries" blasting from the boom-box.

Same goes for directing. It's a job done well. All in all. And despite some minor gripes, the film is enjoyable for the most part. But I cannot help but feel like it fell a tad short. It seemed a bit too clean and cut out. What was coloured in was kept exactly within the lines. I guess that's that "based on" aspect. Life itself is much more colourful, it doesn't care about borders. It's ragged, jagged and jaunty. Quite like the truth. And there are many true sides to any true story.

As I've just recently been to a film festival where I watched a bunch of films knowing very little (if anything) in advance about the motion picture I was about to see and yet enjoyed every single one of them, I made a grave error thinking it could be like that with Hollywood productions. Well. Actually no. I was not thinking at all. My bad. Guess I was already in the zone for a brainless entertainment. Perfect for a demented zombie suffering from Alzheimers' disease. And I do not mean to belittle pensioners and seniors, but it seemed like this nursing home flick was intended for the nappy wearing 9 month olds than their 90 year old counterparts.

Truth to be told, I am a little too harsh on it, but only because the film was too damn basic and one dimensional. From the headlining Morgan Freeman and Tommy Lee Jones I was expecting something in the vein of 'Bucket List' perhaps. Frankly I didn't even know it was a Christmas film, which made it even worse. And though I guess my own ignorance is to blame for that one, it's still unforgivable to waste their talent on a film such as this. Christmas or not.

Perhaps the film will still be enjoyed by a few people, but in a week it will be forgotten and in years to come no TV channel will ever broadcast it over another 'Die Hard' or 'Wonderful Life' and the only place you could find it would perhaps be the old folks homes for rich people. Yet I bet they still have more interesting stuff to do than to watch this one. It might be more entertaining to be shown in a retirement home for poorer people, at least they could entertain themselves by bitching about the luxury lifestyle that they're missing.

Avoid this one like death.

As is the case with the previously released trips ('The Trip', 2010 and 'The Trip to Italy', 2014) with Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon, so it is with 'The Trip to Spain' that it does not really play out as a film but rather an extended TV show. Which it is. Although actually shortened and combined from the six episodes of the last (third) series.

What kind of show exactly is 'The Trip' itself, is quite difficult to determine because although the trips are partly to do with reviewing food, a minuscule amount of comments made on the subject actually reach the viewer. Same is with visiting different locations, though at least in that aspect there are small bits of useful information pointed out every now and again. Though it's hardly ever an extensive introduction to the place visited. It's not a documentary even though it might come across as such. Calling it a talk show wouldn't be quite right either. In a way it is a different version of 'Top Gear' with just as beautiful camera work but less information and unfortunately - as it is listed under comedy - jokes.

Steve and Rob get on with their usual antics which obviously include a lot of impressions, but it gets old at some point and I truly don't want the hear either of them say: "I told you to blow the bloody doors off" and then try to settle on the age of the voice etc. It's the constant competition between the two who's better at impressions which includes mimicking mainly just one sentence over and over and over and over and over and over again. Which brings me the horrific flashbacks from watching 'Dude Where's My Car' as a teen and not being amused. However, I can respect, accept and enjoy repetition (British comic Stuart Lee is a great example), but it has to serve a purpose. At the moment were not watching a film, ahem, TV show. We're watching to guys rehearsing for it. Despite that I'm not calling the show unfunny. No, far from it. 'The Trip to Spain' is still humorous. Just not necessarily laughing out loud funny. It has it's better moments though.

So basically, if you've enjoyed the previous films or TV series, you can probably appreciate this one as well, if not, then there's nothing that will convince you otherwise. It has its entertainment value but not for everyone. If I had enough money to go out for even one meal like in the film with a friend, I would've done that instead and had much more fun. But on the other hand perhaps wouldn't have learned all I know about the invasion of Spain by Roger Moors.

Hardly anyone expects an action thriller to be as moving as The Foreigner. There are tons to choose from that begin with the exact same inciting incident – protagonist's loved ones get killed. Often they even waste unnecessary time so that the audience can grow attached to the soon-to-be-deceased and relate more strongly to the main character. However. Jackie Chan will break your heart from the get go. Maybe it's his own personal lovable demeanour which we're more often than not used to see happily smiling, that helps in the matter, but Jackie's acting skills are nothing to sneer at either. He does a wonderful job.

The film is it's definitely darker and more realistically portrayed than quite a few Jackie's latest works. Jackie's age shows, but in his favour and definitely does not hinder his abilities as one of the world's top action stars. Every punch, kick and fall his character receives reverberates in the viewer, making you believe that this time the protagonist is not invincible.

Though the trailer perhaps might be somewhat misleading in the sense of the full on action ratio in the film, the story unfolding with the Brosnan's character holds its own. It's solid and believable and Brosnan is top notch. Funnily enough, one of the previous reviewers disliked Brosnan's "attempt at sounding Irish", completely ignoring the fact that Brosnan is Irish. Born in Drogheda, town about 30 miles south of Northern Ireland's border.

Story is compelling and thought provoking. Fits in the current political climate but viewed from another angle than the already overused Islamic terrorist tropes. Not to say it doesn't have it's issues. Occasionally there's too much reliance on the exposition, which may be necessary to some who are unfamiliar with IRA and such, but there's definitely a better way to do it than to use a beginner's solution of giving relevant exposition through a phone call for example. Few worn out clichés but nothing that would diminish the suspension of disbelief a great deal.

It's a standout film for both, Chan and Brosnan, in their already impressive résumé. Definitely my favourite by director Martin Campbell. Go and watch it! If you like Jackie Chan, you'll like him even more. Even if you don't like Jackie (then I don't know what's wrong with you but) you'll enjoy his performance in The Foreigner.