The Watch Reviews
 

Hi everyone, I know a lot of people here are writing reviews and I'm not sure if by adding my own opinions and reviews is a bit of an overkill but I kinda felt like putting my thoughts on a few movies to paper (or keyboard).

The Dark Knight Rises Dir. C. Nolan

http://geekleagueofamerica.com/wp-co...s-back-img.jpg

Seven years after Christopher Nolan reinvented the superhero blockbuster with Batman Begins and 4 years after he blew almost every other comic book adaptation out of the water with The Dark Knight, Nolan's trilogy comes to an end in The Dark Knight Rises. This is without a doubt Nolan's biggest movie to date, clocking in at 165 minutes of what should have been pure, white knuckle excitement. Sadly, that is not the case.

Expectations were understandably high after the huge critical and commercial success of The Dark Knight. Nolan followed that up with the equally masterful Inception and all of a sudden the director of Memento and Insomnia had become the toast of Tinseltown. I was afraid that Nolan might lose track with 'Rises and create a big, bombastic yet lifeless movie, my fears were confirmed after I finally had a chance to watch it.

It's start off 8 years after the death of Harvey Dent and the exile of Batman. Gotham is a quieter place, more civilised, less crime and it seems, for the briefest moment at least, that Batman's sacrifice paid off. We're introduced to Commissioner Gordon struggling with the lie he has had to weave and Bruce Wayne living as a recluse. Yet we are never given enough time to connect with these slightly new, old acquaintances, before Bane and the very seductively beautiful Catwoman appear.

Both Tom Hardy and in particular Anne Hathaway deliver solid performances with Bane in particular coming across as a truly tragic creature, especially towards the end. Yet the characters that have been constructed so beautifully over the last 7 years felt weaker this time round. Gordon had less to do, spending a huge chunk of the movie in hospital and I don't want to spoil anything but he does get a larger chunk of the story at the end but apart from running and gunning he doesn't have the emotional draw his had for two previous movies.

All of that could have been forgiven if it was not for the fact that Nolan seems to forget about his title character, possibly due to the fact that he had to juggle a number of characters back and forth, some of which are entirely unnecessary. Now, back to the Batman/Bruce Wayne arc of the story, for too long are we treated to a hobbling Bruce, or a Bruce dancing, or a Bruce stuck in prison and less time is given to the main man himself, Batman. The costume is barely glimpsed throughout the entire movie and the film suffers. Has Nolan forgotten that he is still making a superhero movie, rather than a commentary on current social and economic problems?

I know most of this has sounded largely negative but there are some positives and the Dark Knight Rises is not a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination. There are a number of excellent action set pieces and the inclusion of a jet/helicopter hybrid known as The Bat gives Nolan the chance to put together some of the biggest and boldest action sequences in recent times. Another huge positive is the inclusion of John Blake, a young police office hell bent on putting an end to Gotham's oppression at the hands of Bane and co. Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a wonderful job and the ending leaves behind a few very interesting scenarios, but I will not go into any of them here.

All in all, The Dark Knight Rises doesn't have the heart of Begins or the grand ambition of The Dark Knight but it is nonetheless a big, fun summer blockbuster...if you manage to turn off your brain. Unusual of a Nolan film but very typical of modern Hollywood.

7/10

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

Nice review mate and Welcome to the Reviews Board!

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

Thanks Rodent! Awesome display pic!

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

Had a lot of problems with TDKR, but I actually thought it was pretty cool how much of an ensemble piece it was and how Batman was relegated to borderline supporting character status

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

^^^ That was one of the main reasons I didn't like it. Batman is the title character, he doesn't have to be in every scene but we should see him more often than John Blake. It's like making a Superman flick and seeing more of that photographer guy than the actual Man of Steel.

^Jimmy Olsen

However, I actually liked the fact that Batman wasn't all big and bad in this movie. I liked that when I saw him, I saw Bruce Wayne instead of the Bat, it made him look more human.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day 9.5/10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnM7mFX8D_4

What you see above is one of the greatest action sequences ever shot on film. It is typical of James Cameron's vision for a bigger, far more ambitious sequel to the semi-horror classic, which was The Terminator. Everything about the sequel is better, the action, the acting, the cation sequences, the villain and heroes and of course the special effects. The CGI still holds and has made it one of the most important movies ever made, heralding the age of CGI affected action/fantasy/sci-fi flicks. Almost two decades later, none have been better than Terminator 2.

It's not just the special effects that make this Cameron's one and only masterpiece, it's the fact that a effects heavy action blockbuster was married with a beautifully written script, genius music and pushed each of the main cast to deliver defining performances. Arnold Schwarzenegger was born to play the T-101 and Edward Furlong as a young John Connor was a revelation. It's rare that a child actor/on screen character doesn't come off as annoying, pretentious or just plain gobby but John Connor (starts off as a bit of a rebel) forms a genuine bond, with the machine originally, sent to kill his father and mother.

Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor is transformed from the needy young woman of the first movie into an all action, femme fatale. She's stronger her, not just physically but emotional too, fighting a seemingly indestructible machine to provide a better future for her son. The anxiety and uncertainty she feels, especially when she is partnered with a machine that had once tried to kill her, is reflective of the anxiety most parents feel when their children decide to step out into the big wide world. Yet another example of brilliant writing.

But that's enough about the story and acting elements, for Terminator 2 is an action movie, laced with beautifully intricate sci-fi elements and it is on the cation that it should be judged most. Cameron never lets up, providing set piece after set piece of exhilarating, heart pounding shoot outs and car chases. We see the new, improved T-1000 absorbing bullets, transforming, shape shifting and running damn fast. All of a sudden, the state of the art Terminator from the original seems an out dated bit of trash. Yet he is smarter and he learns the difference between right and wrong, may be he even becomes a bit more...human. All of this through 137 minutes of unadulterated carnage.

Few movies have come close to matching action, heart and story like T2 did all those years ago, even fewer of those movies are effect heavy blockbusters. Inception and The Dark Knight are two great examples but they are no Terminator 2. The greatest action movie ever made. There are few greater accolades than to be the best in your field.

Cloud Atlas (2012)

Dir. Tyker and the Wachowskis

http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content...d-atlas-01.jpg

When you think of great sci-fi you instantly think of Star Wars, the Terminator series, possibly Star Trek or Independence Day, well now you can add Cloud Atlas to that list. This is a movie, as important to the genre as it is to Hollywood itself.

The movie industry has often been accused of not taking enough risks and in the last few years we've seen a number of reboots and sequels for "safe" films, the Batmans, Spidermans, Xmens and old action rehashes of the world. Yet the minds behind this sci-fi epic had crafted a big budget movie with indie sensibilities and a message which deserves more recognition.

All of this is tied together by great performances from an all star ensemble cast, with the likes of Tom Hanks, Halle Barry and Jim Broadbent taking the source material by the horns and riding it with abandon, giving performances which were at least worth some kind of nomination. Broadbent is especially convincing in all his roles, slipping from dark, self obsessed composer to a down on his luck editor stuck in an old people's home.

Not all the casting decisions are correct, with a few missteps where white actors are given prosthetics and made to look Korean...it really is not convincing. However, this is not as big a hindrance as one might aspect, with the intertwining stories leaking into one another with no distinct chronological order, creating a real sense of immersion.

The special effects are another highlight and not simply put in for the sake of big "wow" moments. Many modern film makers have been guilty of going "FX crazy", looking at you Jackson and Lucas. Here the Wachowskis hold back, using CGI as a method of enhancing the story and spectacle, rather than ramming it down our throats because it's what's supposed to happen in modern epics. This is a movie that leaves the chains of convention broken.

This movie has no Oscar nominations, it isn't a massive financial hit and it isn't a brainless CGI orgy...no this is what should happen when Hollywood and technology come together. There are few examples of movies that handle modern cinema as well as this and there are even fewer examples of movies which do so while leaving a lasting impression on your heart.

Watch Cloud Atlas, you deserve it for all the remakes and sequels we've had to put up with.

9/10

Thoroughly agree with your review. It is such a shame that Cloud Atlas is being so overlooked when endless sequels and remakes keep raking it in.

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

I thought that this thread was of the Ben Stiller movie The Watch.

Hopefully things will look up with the UK and European release. I still can't believe it was released about 2 months after the US release.

Oz The great and Powerful

http://www.nerdist.com/wp-content/up...ner-poster.jpg

3D cinema is huge now, there is no denying it. I've always found it to be over rated, Avatar was a decent movie with great visual effects and an increased "sense" of depth but it wasn't exactly the mind blowing experience movie producers want us to believe. But with the huge financial success of Cameron's latest epic, every Tom, Dick and Harry involved in Hollywood wants to have a go. Even movies that have been filmed with traditional 2D cameras are given the 3d treatment, resulting in a mish-mash of visual problems.

Having said all that (sorry for the self indulgent rant), I have to come clean and say that Oz the Great and Powerful is a visual treat for your eyes. Some of the scenes are so beautifully shot, the special effects so eye popping and the 3D so well constructed that you may find your self having some sort of a sensory orgasm as the movie swirls and swells all around you. This is what 3D fantasy film making should be about and Sam Raimi, the master mind behind giving superhero movies the cinematic injection they needed may have repeated all that with 3D cinema.

Having said all that, once you move away from the visual glory of Oz, you are left with a movie that understand it's roots lay in a 74 year old cinematic musical, which is so dear to so many that previous sequels have been shunned by an outraged public. That may be Oz's and Raimi's biggest problem, in trying to appease fans of the original while at the same time trying find their feet in a modern fantasy blockbuster, the director, cast and crew have found themselves in no man's land.

That's not to say Oz isn't fun or well acted, Franco and Kunis in particular deliver stand out performances, although Michelle Williams is a weak link and to be totally honest very drab at times, with her portrayal of Glinda being far too "good". The story holds up and although it's nothing to write home about it is fairly average children's fantasy fair.

The real surprise and up shot in this movie were the two animated characters Finley, voiced by the always watchable Zach Braff and the undoubted star of the show: the little China Girl. Finley is convincing but the China Girl and the CGI used to render her is nothing short of astounding and with Joey King's voice work being exceptional in it's own right, we are left with one of cinema's most enduring and convincing CGI characters. China Girl belongs up there with Golem and Ted.

All in all, Oz the Great and Powerful and is serviceable enough fantasy blockbuster with some top-notch performances but for me this will always be remembered as the movie which convinced me that 3D could be a worthwhile visual tool which actually enhances the audiences' viewing experience.

7/10

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
Release: 1980
Dir. Irvin Kershner

http://rankatron.files.wordpress.com...trikesback.jpg

The greatest sci-fi movie of them all premiered at the start of one of cinema's most enduring decades, amidst massive cinema queues and fan hysteria. Star Wars: A New Hope was a polished summer blockbuster with very old school Hollywood sensibilities. It featured the plucky kid destined for greatness, the lovable rogue and the beautiful princess. Episode IV was the feel good movie of it's generation but Empire aimed to change all that. This was a movie where the stakes were high and the bad guys were unrelenting.

All sequels to highly successful movies have a lot riding on them but rarely does a sequel surpass the original. Empire is unique in that regard, with possibly The Godfather Part II and Terminator 2 being the only other exceptions. This is a far more complex movie than any other in the long running saga; Luke was no longer the blue eyed boy, he had to grow and become stronger to defeat the Galaxy's greatest threat, Han Solo, the fan's favourite had to risk everything in order to save friends and Leia was more mature, a leader in waiting. The Empire on the other hand was planning on crushing the rebellion once and for all, there would be no mercy.

From the opening shot to the final scene, this is easily the most beautiful movie in the franchise. The ice wastes of Hoth and the beautiful city in the clouds are a joy to behold. Kershner works well to hold his camera just long enough for us to breath in the sites and sounds. Kershner's more sedate pace of building a scene lends itself perfectly for the action shots as well, building the tension and then executing the laser blasts and lightsaber duels with flair.

Some of the best scenes take place between Luke and Yoda, the wisened old Jedi who must train the young Skywalker if he is ever to challenge Darth Vader. It's in these scenes that we, the viewers, learn about the power of the Force for the first time, going along the surreal journey with Luke Skywalker. At no other point is there ever such a connect between the audience and the young Jedi.

The various story threads, Leia and Solo on the run, Luke with Yoda and Darth Vader's hunt for the rebels all culminates in my favourite Star Wars locale, Cloud City. This is where we are introduced to the charismatic and charming Lando Calrissian, a Solo-esque rogue who doesn't seem to give a damn. The chemistry between Ford as Solo and Billy Dee as Calrissian is intoxicating at times, it's clear to see that these two one time smugglers were/are good friends and many of the latter scenes in the movie hinge on their relationship being believable.

By now, I'm sure most people know about the ending and huge reveal at the end, this is a Star Wars movie that dares, that wants to surprise, thrill and bewilder in equal terms. This is the sci-fi movie which all others aspire to, smart, action packed and with a whole lot of heart, Kershner, Lucas and the cast should be proud of putting together one of cinema's greatest achievements.

9/10

Ok guys, we have a double header this week, so here I go:

Dir. Don Scardino

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...one-Poster.jpg

Steve Carell, Steve Buscemi, Olivia Wilde, James Gandolfini, Alan Arkin and the come back kid of 2013 himself, Jim Carrey are all amongst the cast of this comedy about magicians. So I don't think it's not an over statement to say that this is a great cast, sadly the movie lacks a solid script, a lovable central protagonist and laughs. That's not to say this isn't funny, in fact, every moment Carrey is on screen is a joy, the veteran returning to his tried and test formula of making people laugh. The problem lies with an underused cast and a poorly written central character.

Carell plays the titular Burt Wonderstone, a down on his luck kid who learns that the way to fortune, fame and being loved is through magic. He sets out with his best friend Anton Marvelton, played here by Buscemi and the two make it big. That is when the story really kicks off, with Carrey playing the new kid on the block, Steve Gray, an amalgamation of modern day street magicians such as David Blaine, Chris Angel and Dynamo. For those of us who are magic fans, it's great to see such characters introduced onto the big screen.

Reading all that, it may seem that there is a strong cast of characters but that just isn't the case, what should have been Wonderstone's greatest strength becomes the movies first of many mistakes. Every character is written much the same way, some are conniving, some are good, not many are entertaining.

Carell has become Hollywood's go to funny man and has shone on the silver screen a number of times, with stand outs such as "The 40 year old Virgin" and "Date Night" but the comedic giant has nothing to do in this film. He is a pompous arse to start with and then goes through the very familiar story arc of the modern Hollywood comedy. I'm sure it's not a spoiler to say that he turns out to have a heart of gold. He does have certain funny scenes but you can probably count them using two fingers.

Steve Buscemi and the always lovely Olivia Wilde are both side kicks and they know it. Wilde brings a certain level of serenity to her role but she doesn't have much to do apart from look great and give Wonderstone a lecture or two. Buscemi is the real heart of the movie, as kind at the start of his career as he is at the end, this is the one guy who fame doesn't seem to have affected. This all leaves Buscemi with nothing to do but coast his way to a pay check.

I hate to give this film a bashing, I'm a lifelong fan of magic and when I was younger I bought my fair share of magic kits, which is why I wanted to love this so much and the only silver lining here is Carrey's street magician. Gray is narcissistic, exploitative and down right mad but that's why his the star of the show. This is Carrey at his absolute best, or the best in years anyway. The one lone hope of an otherwise average comedy. Just goes to show the comedic depth that the veteran still carries.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone stars off promisingly, has a great cast and what seems to be a decent script waiting to break through but sadly falls short...fat too short. This isn't the movie magic fans were waiting for, neither is this the comedy movie goers were looking for. For a movie that is supposed to be about magic, it lacks any real power to amaze and the greatest trick it plays is getting your arse on that cinema seat.

6/10

Oops, thought I had already posted part two, so here it is, welcome to the Coen brothers:

The Ladykillers

Dirs. Ethan and Joel Coen

This is a remake of the 1955 original and although I haven't seen that particular movie, it's hard for me to think that it could top the Coen brothers version, starring the ever versatile Tom Hanks. Those of you who are familiar with the brothers body of work will instantly recognise the catchy dialogue, the eccentric and sometimes downright weird characters and the brilliant ability to tell a mad cap story and keep it captivating all the way through.

The Coen brothers have seemed obsessed with the American south recently, with O Brother, where art Thou? and No Country for Old men, using their southern surroundings and society for as much of the story telling and humour as the script. This plays off wonderfully in Ladykillers, with Tom Hanks "Professor" speaking in a lovely, southern droll, each word serenaded in a rhythmic tone.

With the script wonderfully written and a terrific cast in place, all the brothers really had to do was point the camera and shout "action!", yet the went further then that, combining beautiful still shots of serene, lonely buildings with those of energetic movement, evident at its best in the gospel choir scenes. The Coens have always tried to make movies which are visually intriguing and this is easily one of their best in that regard. The ending however seems rushed and lacks any real depth of bite but just like this review, the movie is short and sweet, clocking in at about 90 minutes.

7/10

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

Exactly: ......if you manage to turn off your brain. The fight scene between the released prisoners and the police is the worst I've seen recently. Bane kicks Batman's ass in the beginning as if Batman was just a bug. The difference between them is visibly huge. Just the fact the he broke his back and threw him in a pit...and then he recovered...and then comes back and kicks Bane's ass, it is just ridiculous. I mean we all know it is a Sci-Fi movie, I did not expect any realistic facts, but this script was simply insulting. Just because it is a "Batman" film does not mean we have to give it a "Like" or "It is nice if you switch your brain off". It is a bad movie and that is that.

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

Very Nice Reviews my friend!
I enjoy reading them.
Keep up the great work.

Thanks Rhaegar, and I have to say, I have the hots for your sister :p

But I will keep the reviews coming, I know I've been a bit slow lately, mainly due to university. So here is a review of something I found very interesting and at times, surprisingly original:

To bring back The Watch Reviews I had to find a special movie and that's exactly what happened when I watched the original, Let The Right One In...It is special to say the least.

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

You're the only person other than myself I've seen compare this movie to Pan's Labyrinth. I wholeheartedly agree that they're both equally great.

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

I loved Let the Right One In, but I thought the ending was absolutely essential to the film.

The two are very different in content but the basic themes are just so similar, the whole aspect of children coming of age in a dark, horrible world which seems to get worse as they progress. I also think the two movies are tales of redemption and I just couldn't help but fall in love with the central performances, a rare thing when child stars are mentioned.

Don't get me wrong, the ending was fine but I just found it to drag on a bit, with the tying of a couple loose ends, derailing an otherwise very well paced movie. I have yet to read the book and watch the American "remake" although I'm putting off watching it.

The remake is actually pretty good, but I won't urge you to see it if you've already watched the original.

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

one of the things i've really come to love about this forum, along with the people who populate it, is taking time to read a list of reviews by any given individual. I've only done a couple so far and thoroughly enjoyed them. And like them I've enjoyed and wish to continue, having read yours. (it appears I'm reviewing reviews :p:D)
I like the choice of movies and what you have said regarding them. The ones I have yet to see and those I have; you have a love for movies and a sincere respect for the process and balance critique and appreciation quite well.
Great job! rep points all around

Might just give it a go anyway. I've heard it balks at some of the themes in the original and the novel.

Why thank you Mr Blonde!
I hope you enjoy my upcoming review more than I actually enjoyed the movie itself :sick:

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

since i give your review an 8.5, I guess i DID enjoy it more than you did the film; it was rather intriguing to see someone who didn't hate, but didn't love, which seemed to be the way of this movie and its been expressed rather passionately on both ends, but such is the way of extemes. Excellent balance of pro's and con's, watch, bravo

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

Excellent review dude! You touched on a few points that are very interesting, especially the overt Jesus metaphors and symbolism in the movie. So much so we have Superman in front of a stained glass window. I thought that was a bit too much.

Thanks guys! I'm back with yet another comic book review, this summer has been packed with them. So here we go:

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

I don't know about it being Cameron's one and only masterpiece, but can't argue with the fact that TERMINATOR II: JUDGMENT DAY is superb and one of the best sequels ever made...riveting from start to finish.

Good reviews. While I agree Mean Streets isn't top tier Scorsese, it has this scene. The first minute or so of this clip is pretty much everything I love about movies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srphI34omF4

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

That is a very good scene, it's something Scorsese would go on to perfect in movies such as Goodfellas. Like I said, this is a movie that shows us just how good Scorsese COULD be.

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

I really like your reviews man. They're very well written, and to the point. props

Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro, has there been a better combination in Hollywood? Scorsese the masterful film maker and De Niro the obsessive character actor who in his prime, did what ever it took to make a role his own. Here, in the oft underrated 1982 film, the two may have pulled off their best work...well ok Taxi Driver is a more organic movie, in which New York city lives through the silver screen and Goodfellas may be the ultimate non-Godfather gangster flick but it's in The King of Comedy that we see both, director and actor, mature.

Rupert Pupkin is the oldest character De Niro had played till this point, not withstanding an aged Jake LaMotta; De Niro himself was approaching middle age, whereas Scorsese had crossed the 40 barrier. Both men it seemed wanted to make something a little more grounded than Raging Bull and Mean Streets. A movie not obsessed with gangsters, visceral violence, women, catchy soundtracks and smooth, cool iconoclastic super heroes. This is a movie about a loser and they way it's filmed belies that fact. There is little of the Scorsese flash here, none of the characters are cool, "Oh I want to be like that" gangster types, in fact, in the age of modern celebrity, none of them, least of all Rupert Pupkin are all that crazy.

Back in 1982, Pupkin may have come across has a mad man, a celebrity obsessed lunatic who wanted the big lights and fame. Now, in this age of reality TV and 15 minute stars, Rupert Pupkin fits in perfectly. This is not to say that his character doesn't have the same impact as he did three decades earlier, it's just that the circumstances have changed. We now look at Pupkin not as an outsider but a very observant reflection of our 21st century, celebrity obsessed culture. Pupkin could be a metaphor of any countless number of Big Brother contestants and glossy magazine aficionados.

It is with that sentiment in mind, that I look back at The King of Comedy and think that it may be, of all of Scorsese's fine work from 1970-90, his most relevant movie to a modern audience. Yes Goodfellas retains that slick charm and Joe Pesci on top form, yes Raging Bull is a fine representation of the psychological and physical breakdown of a man and yes Taxi Driver is De Niro's greatest performance but it in this underrated classic that we see Scorsese at his most penetrative and De Niro at his most subtle. Watch it if you haven't already and if you have seen it, watch it again.

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

The King of Comedy is a great Scorsese film, which as you point out seems more relevant today perhaps than it was before, hence why it seems to have undergone a little bit of a critical re-evaluation.

I absolutely love the ending of the film, and was actually cheering on Pupkin's characters, it is a film, after all.

Yeah I liked Pupkin too, weird guy but he has a genuine naivety to him which is attractive...or maybe it's just the way De Niro played him back when, you know, Bob used to actually act in his movies.

I'm going to do something a little different now, instead of reviewing a movie, I'm going to review The Wire, one of the most critically acclaimed TV shows of the decade, maybe even ever. I've come to the show late and have just finished watching the first 2 seasons, so I'm reviewing both seasons below:

The Wire

Where to begin? This is a show packed full of great characters, even better dialogue, terrific story telling and a deeper, political message about segregation within the United States. It also features a fair few genre cliches, corrupt police officers and government officials, the alcoholic detective trying to piece together a broken family but the cliches are often balanced out by bold (at the time) decisions, such as having a lesbian police officer or excessive drug use and violence. In many ways, The Wire is the inspiration and the trend setter for all future, HBO, multi-faceted, adult and violent stories. I don't think it's too far fetched to think, that if The Wire had never been made, we may never have seen such shows as Treme or Game of Thrones.

The show initially centers around Det. Jimmy McNulty, played by a charming, swaggering Dominic West. There are a number of characters and actors who round off the cast but it isn't until we're introduced to Michael K. William's Omar that you truly see the shows potential. Omar is dangerous, violent but contains the sort of ethics that many Hollywood criminals seem to posses. He steals but he does so only from drug dealers...he kills but only in retaliation. Did I mention he is a homosexual? How many tough guys, on TV anyway, are portrayed like this? I can't pick any.

Season one tells the story of a certain Avon Barksdale (let down by a mediocre Wood Harris), one of the biggest and most powerful drug lords in Baltimore. The first half of the season shows a small group of detectives, all drafted in to sort out this problem called Barksdale, trying to get a foothold in the investigation, all the while side stepping political manouvering from the powers that be. Barksdale is invisible, no criminal records, no photos, he's a ghost in Baltimore and Det. McNulty and co. have no idea how to get to him. That is until Lester Freemon, played as a cool, calm, collected shadow in the dark by Clarke Peters, manages to find a lead.

This is where the series and it's creator David Simon excel, they put some of the coolest (hate to keep using that word) characters ever on screen. Each one swaggers and oozes ice, each one has a wicked sense of humour too. It's beautiful scripting, which really has to be seen to be fully appreciated. One particular highlight is from the opening scene of episode 1, where McNulty is having a conversation with with a man living in one of Baltimore's ghettos about another man who has just been killed:

McNulty: Let me understand. Every Friday night, you and your boys are shooting craps, right? And every Friday night, your pal Snot Boogie… he'd wait til there's cash on the ground and he'd grab it and run away? You let him do that?
Man On Stoop: We'd catch him and beat his ass but ain't nobody ever go past that.
McNulty: I gotta ask ya: If every time Snotboogie would grab the money and run away, why'd you even let him in the game?
Man On Stoop: What?
McNulty: If Snotboogie always stole the money, why'd you let him play?
Man On Stoop: Got to. This America, man.

Or how about D'Angelo Barksdale and cousin of Avon, speaking on capitalism:

D'Angelo: "Now you think Ronald McDonald gonna go down to the basement and say, "Hey Mr. Nugget - you the bomb. We sellin' chicken faster than you can tear the bone out. So I'm gonna write my clowney ass name on this fat-ass check for you." ****. Man, the ***** who invented them things? Still working in the basement for regular wage...Believe."

And this is just a little taster of what The Wire does best, dialogue so sharp your TV screens will need stitches. But not everything is said in jest, as Simon's said in several interviews, The Wire is a show about "how institutions have an effect on individuals, and how... whether you're a cop, a longshoreman, a drug dealer, a politician, a judge [or] lawyer, you are ultimately compromised and must contend with whatever institution you've committed to." All dressed up in the guise of a cop drama.

Season 2 is easily the better of the two, it features many new characters with a large chunk of the story centering on the white, Polish/Greek/Israeli/Russian gangs and gangsters of the Baltimore docks. The tone couldn't be more different, with Barksdale and his second in command Stringer Bell, played by a certain Idris Alba in his first major role, taking a backseat. This is a risky move, akin to if Lost Season 2 had put the likes of Jack, Kate and Sawyer on the substitute's bench. It's risky but then again, The Wire can do it because it creates so many other relatable characters which are instantly likable, even the shady drug dealers and pimps.

I didn't mention Alba's turn in Season one mainly because he didn't have much to do but scowl, growl and be the general to Avon's president but here, without giving away too much, Idris Alba is in his element. He is vicious yet thoughtful, fearsome yet careful, violent but always calm. It's almost as if this role is an audition for his turn as Luther. But once again, the scenes that really stand out are the ones that contain McNulty and his drinking partner Bunk, or Omar, or the sharp back and forth between two "side" characters I've barely spoken about, Herc and Carver, the odd couple of the show and probably it's most endearing love story (kidding...kinda).

So, there you have it, so many interesting characters and stories that I can only fit in a handful. The show features a running theme of terrorism or it's supposed threat, of under financing within police departments that matter and incompetent leaders. This is a great show, not quite the best show ever, as some people call it, then again I've only seen 2 of the 5 seasons on offer but it is certainly an intriguing bit of television. In fact, it's a must watch for everyone of you who may have missed the show in it's original run.

Just another little gem to leave you with:

Daniels: [to Major Valchek] I'll tell you the truth Major. Everyone who saw the punch wrote on it. And they've all got Prez throwing the punch, no question. They've also got you addressing a subordinate officer as uh, what was it? A ****-bird?
Valchek: **** you. This is the Baltimore Police Department, not the Roland Park Ladies Tea.

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

Good idea putting TV series in your thread, I may hijack that idea. I really like The Wire, but not as much as those who hold it uo as the pinnacle of television. Seasons 1&3 are by far my favorites. 2 left something to be desired for me, I was not a fan of the dock workers.

Re: The Watch Reviews
 

Great review Watch, Glad you like one of my Favourites The King of Comedy :yup:

Damn it, I should have copyrighted this lol But I agree, not quite the pinnacle of television but I can see how it has affected tv over the last decade or so, truly impressive.

It's one of Scorsese's best, keeps gettin better when ever I watch it.

Dr Who: The Time of the Doctor

Spoiler Alert!

7.5/10

So here I was, not having written a review for a very long time, when I watched Foxcatcher and boy, is it the type of movie I want to tell everyone about, so here goes:

Foxcatcher

Ok, I haven't done this in a while but I've just started my Xmas holz and I think I finally have some time to scribble some of my opinions on the movies I've seen this year, so here goes!

Really enjoyed reading your review even though I might not agree with a lot of it, partiularly regarding Anne Hathaway...I really hated her in this movie.

Loved this review too, but this one, I agree with every word you said.

that's probably because I have a soft spot for Hathaway :D

Arrival is a movie with very big ideas and told with the help of a very good cast, it also helps that the man behind the camera is one of the best going. The problem arises, when half way through, the mind realises not much is happening beyond those big ideas. The central theme, that we all need to communicate with each other on a global scale and learn to work together is sweet, especially in light of recent events but that does not make for an engrossing film. Where Villeneuve's best work (Sicario and Prisoners) manage to combine big ideas with water tight scripts and great sequences, Arrival feels like a lonely step child. It so wants to belong but it never does.

That is not to say it's a bad movie. As far as thoughtful sci-fi in modern Hollywood goes, Arrival is decent, beautifully shot and exceptionally well acted. Amy Adams, probably the premier actress in American cinema combines with one of the most charming, and effortless actors in Jeremy Renner, with a supporting cast of Forest Whitaker and Michael Stuhlbarg. The latter is wasted and barely seen but when he is around, he does his job well. Whitaker, almost as wasted here as in Rogue One, is still immensely watchable although his gruff, army type is not a unique character.

Ultimately, this is Adam's movie and she is in top form. beneath the obvious vulnerability and sadness lies a resolve and grit in her character and there are few actors, male or female, that would be able to display it, along with a healthy dose of genius. It's always difficult to make movie scientists relatable or even likable, but with the aid of Renner who himself does an impressive job, Adam's skill and charisma shines through.

It's a shame then, that in a movie that has so much importance, an awards worthy performance, a story with global impact and aliens, that so little ever happens. Oscar season is here and there will be awards but Arrival could and should have been so much more. The best movies are those that can paint their big ideas in a form that is both impactful and entertaining. That's cinema. Arrival lacks the entertainment element. It's a shame, considering just hot good Sicario was the year before.

This is a movie that can be reviewed in one of two ways; either as a loud, bombastic blockbuster suitable for the whole family, or from the perspective of a dedicated Star Wars fan. I am not the latter, although I have enjoyed previous entries in the series and hold The Empire Strikes Back as one of my favourite ever films. However, I can understand frustrations from some long time fans, as much of what they old dear...heck, even sacred, is wiped away and laughed off. This is not the best way to handle a rabid fan base. Then again, Disney understands Star Wars no longer needs that small group of hardcore supporters. The franchise is not a nerdy niche, it is vast, all consuming even. Every one will watch this now. It is a mass market product that can do away and even laugh at its nerdier, more mythical pass.

None of that means it is a bad movie and viewed as blockbuster fun for the whole family, it is possibly the best of the year. Deeper and more creative than Thor, nowhere near as dour and ugly as Justice League. The opening sequence may be one of the best ever in the series, a fine space battle which also helps set up the rest of the story and a new character. The visual effects are also some of the best on show, with a handful of practical effects combined with exceptional CGI, which never feels intrusive or inorganic. For the first time in a while, we get to see new creatures, vehicles and locations on screen, with the Porg's both cute and annoying but it's the Chrystal Critters that are most startling. Beautifully realised and surprisingly important to the plot.

The plot, sadly this is where the film seems to buckle under its own ambition and rams home too many political points. Some are well realised, in particular a beautifully constructed section on a casino based planet. Monte Carlo eat your heart out. It is Johnson's stab at dissecting capitalism and telling us why rampant materialism can be so divisive and abusive to society. Other sections are not so well handled, ideas thrown out there and then forgotten. The central plots with Rey and Finn suffer from a combination of convolution and nonsense. Finn is barely even a character here and it takes Boyega's charm to even make him watchable. Rey on the other hand has everything to do, whizzing across three different worlds, training, fighting, saving every one. Even Luke was not this busy across three films. The effect of this is that Rey loses any coherence as a character.

The new additions, namely Rose (Kelly Tran) and Vice Admiral Holdo (Laura Dern) are hit and miss. Rose starts off as a lowly mechanic style character, mourning the loss of her sister in the opening sequence and ends up being at the forefront of the rebellion, able to fly craft and do battle. How'd that happen? How long has passed for her to learn those skills? Oh and when did her "love" for Finn develop? When they were bickering or when she thought he was a deserter?

Holdo only fairs slightly better and that too because of the mystery surrounding her motives. It is a surprisingly well constructed sequence of events but one that ultimately makes Poe Dameron (clearly being groomed to be the most likeable member of the cast with a role as rebel leader) look a complete fool. How can a man like that ever lead? Then again, plots have not been the barometer of blockbuster success. Ultimately it is a movie that made me laugh and smile almost all the way throughout. There were genuine applause moments, from the destruction of the dreadnought to THAT death. Luke showing off his powers was also fun and an inkling of what the Jedi are capable of.

A word on Carrie Fisher then. She is sombre mood throughout and seems to have entirely lost her aristocratic accent. Are we watching Princess Leia or Carrie Fisher? Does it matter? Maybe not, as the movie is a sweet send off for the character, not from the franchise but from the forefront of the saga. The last of the original trilogy but now willing to pass her torch onto the next generation. Her scenes carry the most weight and her arc, although small, is the best of the group.

So all in all, if someone wants a good time at the cinema, which is visually arresting and inventive in its use of light and sound, then I'd say go for it. It is a fun time and well worth a well priced ticket. For die hard fans, if you haven't seen the movie yet, know that you are in for a kicking of your childhood. Nothing will be sacred.

7/10

This is a movie with a soft, summer glow, drenching the country side and the script in a warmth rarely seen in many modern, family films. The aesthetic really is a triumph and it helps give Sherlock Holmes, so often portrayed these days as a cold, uncaring, sociopath. Now, that warmth is helped along by Ian MacKellen, who, in my opinion, delivers his best on screen performance in years. It really is a remarkable portrayal, not just of an incredible, fictional character but of life at an end. This is not just another Holmes mystery, it is the tale of life and death.

MacKellen is ably supported by an excellent Laura Linney, who does not have much to do but be a slightly overbearing mother, however, she pulls it off and comes away being quite likeable. The real standout of this small cast is Milo Parker, who plays 10-year-old Roger, the son of the house keep Linney portrays. So often, child actors are trapped trying to act like a child, but Milo plays it as naturally as possible. It is a performance that contrasts perfectly with MacKellen's and the centre piece of this story.

The mystery that is shown throughout the film. Holmes' last case, is not particularly interesting, or even engrossing. To be honest, it is quite simple and at times, flat. But that is not the point of this film; here we're meant to see the end of life and all the troubles, memories and heart break it can bring. A sweet, heartfelt little film.

The Disaster Artist
Dir. James Franco


When James Franco decided to make a movie about the most famous bad movie of them all, I expected something subversive, funny yet subtle, delving into the mind of Tommy Wiseau (the mind behind The Room), sadly The Disaster Artist is none of those things. Yet it is funny, at times it is even hilarious but then again, when you are replicating scenes, frame by frame, from The Room, with Franco's hilarious Tommy accent, how can it not be? The problem is, beyond replicating what many cinema-goers have already seen via YouTube and maybe even late night screenings, there is little substance here.

The movie opens with a meeting between Tommy (James Franco) and Greg (brother Dave), who quickly develop an unlikely friendship, seemingly based on how much Greg admires Tommy's balls for being bat **** crazy. That is it, that is all we really know about the two and why they remain friends. Towards the end of the movie, there is no reason for Greg to go back to Tommy, after having been treated like utter trash...but he does. A shrug and a smile later, they are friends again.

A supporting cast which included Alison Brie, Seth Rogen and a weird, nonsensical cameo from Bryan Cranston add little to the story. A little digging shows that Brie's character is entire fictitious, Cranston's part in the film is also made up (why is it included at all?) and while Rogen delivers a few funny quips and expressions, his character is relegated to the background.

Ultimately, much like The Room itself, this movie will make you laugh but leave you feeling cold. Seeing the end credits roll, you start to wonder why you wasted a 103 minutes of your life. I hate to be this negative about it, but apart from aping The Room and making fun of the subject matter, there isn't much here. I guess that is representative of James Franco himself. Funny, weird and intriguing but delve a little deeper and there is nothing beyond the odd stare.

A completely missed opportunity to dig deep into the life of one of cinema's most mysterious and engaging entities. Tommy Wiseau deserves a deeper introspective, maybe a documentary based on Greg Sestero's book would be better.

Oh, Hi 5/10 mediocre score...anyway, how's your sex life?

Ten years ago, Disney's Marvel studios sat down and mapped out a plan for a shared, cinematic universe. It would be unprecedented in scale and a major risk. Spider-Man and the X-Men, Marvel's two biggest comic properties were in the hands of rivals, so they would have to build the box office success on lesser known heroes, Iron Man, Captain America and company. 2008 saw the release of The Incredible Hulk and then Iron Man, to varying degrees of success. Fast forward to 2018 and the MCU is a vast media entity, worth billions of dollars, coming off the back of one of their most successful movies and flooding the market with copycats.

And so, it is with this history and success behind it, that the first part of the Avenger's finale debuts and boy is it good. It is a popcorn blockbuster of gargantuan proportions, immaculately produced, wonderfully acted and carefully crafted. Marvel and every one involved, from the Russo brothers, the production team, the cast and crew could have dialled it in and still produced a massive hit but that is not what happens here. For all the bombast and brilliantly choreographed/animated action, there is genuine heart and a very human story...even if that human story features a big, purple/pink alien.

Thanos is that alien, a hulking piece of CGI, sincerely and subtly brought to life by Josh Brolin and the boffins behind the scenes. He is a CGI character to rival Gollum or Caesar. Most importantly, he is one of the best written villains in all cinema...yes I went there, not just comic book movies or this particular genre, I really do mean all cinema. The backstory is fleshed out but avoids being too overwhelming, his relationships, a key aspect of the story are brought to the fore and his motivations laid bare. He is a maniac, make no mistake about it, a mass murdering sociopath but like Darth Vader before him, he does so in a world of delusion, fuelled by hate and despair. the final hurdle he must jump to attain the power he has so longed for is a Greek tragedy in scale. Agamemnon eat your heart out. All this in what is supposed to be a brainless CGI fest.

The heroes sadly are not as well fleshed out, with Captain America being the biggest name to just...well to just be there. He is heroic, we all know that and that is all he does, heroic things. There is no character development or even a story arc. The same can be said for the rest of his crew (Black Widow, War Machine and co). Iron Man, Spider-Man and Dr Strange not only receive more screen time but a genuine plot and the conclusion of it feels heartfelt, if a bit cheesy at times. Ditto for the Guardians of the Galaxy, who are the funniest and most charming part of the entire feature.

A juggling act this impressive requires impressive planning and a meticulous attention to detail. Are we surprised that the Russos, with their success in the Captain America franchise, managed to pull it off? I am a little, they were good before, they are great here. The scenes are paced almost perfectly, Peter Jackson and the Lord of the Rings trilogy would be proud. The editing and story telling is so sublime that the 140 minute or so of run time whizzes by and at the end of it all, you are left breathless and wanting more. In an age of big budget, low grade blockbusters, that is all I want. Yet I do not want anyone to think Infinity War is the best of a bad bunch.

No, as a cinematic triumph it stands alongside Terminator 2, the aforementioned Ring trilogy and some of Spielberg's best work. This is a must watch and whatever score I give or you see floating around the internet is irrelevant.

Avengers: Endgame is here; Marvel's billion dollar juggernaut reaches its conclusion, after twenty-one feature films and eleven years, to the sound of resounding applause and (for this particular fan) a little bit of disappointment. Why the long face? Good question and the answer is simple, Infinity War was a blockbuster masterpiece. It was to the 2010s what Jaws was to the 70s and Terminator 2 to the 90s, a benchmark feature which was both money and heart. Many knew that any sequel, no matter how good, would fail to reach the height of that predecessor but Endgame stumbles along, far smaller in scale than the Russo brothers classic and sadly, far less inventive. The action set pieces are at times bland and the comedy feels far too forced (Hulk and Thor, what happened to you guys?).

Having said all that, there is still a lot to like. The smaller scale means that the Avenger originals get a lot more screen time and the quieter moments feel far more significant. Iron Man and Captain America are the stars here because this is their story, a culmination of their heroism and sacrifice. We are reminded, time and time again, just how far these two have come, from uncomfortable allies to enemies and ultimately to ageing warriors. It is a fine arc and the best part of the film. Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr. put in their best ever performances; they are the glue that holds the uneven plot together, because we care and for eleven years, they made us care.

I have made a conscious effort to keep the spoilers to a minimum but I will mention that there is time travel and as a fan of the MCU, it hits all the right marks...mostly. Going back to 2012 and the first invasion of New York, or to 2014 and Peter Quill's first appearance is fun and funny but this is also where the problems arise. In trying so hard for nostalgia, tying up a decade plus of loose ends and building a heartfelt core to the central action, the Russos misstep more than once. Plot hole after plot hole arises, rules of time travel that are set up by the film itself seem to be totally forgotten and a crucial aspect of the previous no longer feels as heartfelt. We cared so much for the loss of Gomorrah because we realised that Thanos finally had something to lose, a true sacrifice had to be made. Repeating something similar, with characters that do not have a relationship resonating the same way, leaves an empty hole in a sequence that was supposed to mean more. It did not.

That is the ultimate problem with the entire sequel, it fails in parts where Infinity War succeeded. The story beats where we are supposed to care feel forced and the action that should allow us to feel excitement are few and far between...yet, through it all, there are moments where the crowd cheer, laugh and applaud. The return of some key characters got the loudest cheers and showcased that there are plenty who care and have lived a significant portion of their lives with these movies. Marvel's send off is both fun and awkward, precise and clumsy, heartfelt and cold, yet it works because we longed for it to work. All we really wanted was to see our on screen heroes one last time. With that, Endgame succeeds. It may not be great but it does not need to be. It merely allows us to put to rest a significant portion of our lives.

8/10

I wasn't quite sure how to start this review...I questioned what I thought, what I felt and ultimately, the conclusion I came to. It is never good to second guess your own opinion, why should you? It is YOUR opinion and yet, in the age of internet fires, voicing unpopular opinions can lead to the hangman's noose. Breaking Bad has its fans, I am one of them and it is from that perspective that I write what you are about to read - this movie should be titled, El Camino: A Bad Movie. There I said it....good God that is great have off my chest. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, let us begin.

The story here is simple, Jesse is on the run moments after the end of Breaking Bad and he has decided that Alaska is his destination (because a dead Mike Ehrmentrout told him...in a flashback...Alaska...yep).I have a lot of good will for Vince and his team, for the show and the prequel Better Call Saul which is full of energy, humour, fun pacing and a very good second season; so I sat down and allowed myself to be invested in Jesse Pinkman one more time, even though he deserves all the bad coming to him. From then on we are re-introduced to Skinny Pete (looking terribly aged) and Badger. They are willing to go above and beyond to help Pinkman, their reason explained with a single line which never sounds convincing enough.

After that point the plot drags and it is not a spoiler to say that Jesse is looking for money. That is it. He just needs money to go the route of Saul Goodman and disappear. Not every movie has to have a complex plot, I get that but here, Jesse does one thing...search people's homes for money. He spends about half an hour of actual film time in a single locations where almost nothing happens till the final five minutes. Could you imagine a Breaking Bad episode with such bad pacing? Then there is a scene with the always brilliant Robert Forster, reprising his too small role of d Galbraith. Yet again, the dialogue never seems to flow, instead it drips into an endless nothing, where the duo come to a deal they could have completed one hundred words earlier.

Do you see the problem? Vince Gilligan has fallen into the trap he did with Better Call Saul, self indulgence; Bob Odenkirk's charisma has been enough to lift that show, along with improving seasons, but Aaron Paul has never been that guy. Terrific as a supporting actor but not enough to fill the screen as the main man. This self indulgence from the once brilliant Gilligan is seemingly mixed with a brash arrogance he has never showcased before. Gone are the finer details, continuity and care of characters, replaced by fan service and a "meh, we can get away with this" attitude. There are an umber of rather pointless flashbacks, which include a murder, a CGI'd bald head for Walter White and the worst sin of all, the return of Jesse Plemons as Todd Alquist.

Don't get me wrong, Plemons is one of the best actors out there but right here, why was he included if there would be no effort to cover up the weight gain and obvious ageing? You can get away with it for Skinny Pete but Todd? The character was pivotal for the end of Breaking Bad and takes up a lot of screen time in the film, yet no effort has been made to alter him at all. This took me, and I am sure many watching it without the fan hat on, out of the movie. This is a character who clearly isn't from the same timeline at all. A prime Gilligan would never have pulled off such a trick. Is Todd even necessary to the story? The flashback scenes could have been shorter, or shot in such a way as to limit his view but there he stands, in all his glory. It is as if Gilligan is just shrugging his shoulders and mouthing the words, "I am too big to fail...bitch".

For me, this is what the movie feels like. One long pronunciation of "bitch". A straight bitch for the fans, not just of the show but also of film and good writing in general. An over long, over stretched TV movie, not up to the standards of what Netflix has been offering for years now. A sad end to a once great franchise. At least I hope it ends with this and we do not get a El Camino: Ice Road Truckers sequel.

Imagine, as you watch this movie, that you have temporary amnesia, which lasts three hours and twenty minutes. In that time, forget the movie is directed by Scorsese, forget that it stars De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, forget all that baggage and assess what you see. A tired, cliched, oddly colourful spoof of a gangster movie; now, before you start sharpening your forks and lighting your torches, think back to the scenario I am proposing...can you deny what I have just said?

That is not to say that there are no positives, because there definitely are (how often does Scorsese make an out and out bad film?). Al Pacino, so long away from a big Hollywood production is in exceptional form. Yes it is his tired schtick of playing a "hot head" who shouts through his dialogue and chews the scenery but at least it is entertaining and at least he is trying. The script, penned by Steven Zaillian is quite humorous and there is chemistry enough between De Niro and Pacino that the interplay between their characters (Frank Sheeran and JImmy Hoffa) is playful, fun and emotional. It is surprising that De Niro usually on autopilot actually looks to be engaged here.

There are problems however and they seem to start right from the outset. The much talked about de-ageing technology used in numerous modern films is here and it is, in one word, terrible. Frank Sheeran in the 1950s should have been a man in his late 30s/early 40s but De Niro's de-aged version looks closer to 50 or more and his body is so stiff you can't help but laugh (a scene early on when Sheeran's hard man credentials are highlighted when he beats up a grocery store owner is pure comedy gold...unintentionally). Then there is Joe Pesci....oh Joe Pesci.

The one time king of supporting actors is out of retirement and he looks like a wrinkled green pea...de-aged or otherwise. Actually, once he is de-aged and pops up on screen like this for the first time, he looks ab it like something from Spielberg's Tintin movie. Maybe it is a 60 year old Tintin, I don't know and honestly, I don't care. It seems like Pesci also stopped caring. He ambled through scene after scene, the exact same expression on his face and only ever seems to come to life towards the end, when he really puts in an effort to play a stroke stricken version of his character. However, for 3 hours and 10 minutes before that, Russell Buffalino could have been played by anyone, Pesci is emotionless, faceless, charisma-less here and that is sad, because he was the original supporting actor.

I won't waste much more time or space on this, as it is pretty obvious what I think about this movie. Take away the Scorsese tag and all the critical nostalgia and we have something that looks and plays like a TV movie. Not utterly useless but certainly far from the masterpiece you have been told it is.

WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. F***?

Let me repeat...WHAT THE ACTUAL F***? (Spoilers ahead!)

I have no idea where to start with this one. As I often say in Star Wars movie reviews, I am not an out and out Star Wars fan but they are usually good fun with breezy, blockbuster plots. The Empire Strikes Back is the high point of the series and a great, great film in its own right. The series is not so important to me either side of that stand out (stand alone?) moment but this all consuming, mega-bucks, likely one billion dollar monstrosity is a failure on every level. If anyone involved in the writing process had a plot, it was jettisoned long ago, if anyone in the producing process had a heart, it was stolen long ago.

Let's just write down some of the "WTF" moments in this pile of trash - why was Palpatine not sign posted anywhere in the near four hours of film preceding this? Why was almost every story arc from the previous film deleted, ignored or destroyed? Why was there no plot indicating Palpatine had children at any stage in the 8 films previous? What happened to the intense, self sacrificing love between Finn and Rose? The most we get this time is a pat on the shoulders. What exactly is the Emperor's plot in this one? To bring Kylo and Rey together so he can suck their...erm....Force energy? Or does he really want to turn Rey and live through her? Why in the hell of hells did he create an armada, each with planet destroying capabilities...even though The First Order largely runs everything and is essentially another empire?

I have to stop otherwise I will burn the mechanics in my keyboard.

At this stage, we have to talk about The Last Jedi, just a bit. Yes people complained that it did not hold any of the Star Wars lore as sacred (not entirely true) and that the character of Luke Skywalker should not be what it became, which is problematic because the best characters are the ones that change (I understand the change in this instance was poorly handled); yet through all that the movie took a direction, had a plot which led to a somewhat worthy conclusion and propelled the series in a genuinely new direction. Personally, I enjoyed the fact that Johnson and co wanted a movie which was not the usual fantasy of the "chosen one" but rather a story of how people, all of us, can choose to change our circumstances and rise up against our oppressors. A very socialist science fiction dream pertinent for our times. All of this was capitalised in Rey's parents being of no consequence yet she was still special, as was a random storm trooper and a small time engineer.

I could have gotten behind a plot of that nature, even if poorly executed but...and I have to mention it again...Rey being Palpatine's grandaughter makes no sense what so ever. Heck, which one of her parents was related to Palpatine? Who cares, because it is bloody obvious the script writers did not, it is obvious J.J. Abrams was self pleasuring while watching lens flare from The Force Awakens and Kennedy was jumping up and down in a feminine room about her feminist plot with all her strong, independent, female characters (Who almost always need saving by men, but meh, WHO CARES?).

This really is one of the most atrocious cash grabs in the history of entertainment. It plunges he depths of Fast and Furious, The Justice League and Batman v Superman, yet retains none of brief entertainment value they may offer.

I hate how negative this all is so I will end with the two positives - Daisy Ridley is beautiful, sensitive, vulnerable and strong in her nuanced performance as Rey Palpatine (WTF?), while the visual fidelity of this particular movie is probably ILM's highest career point. It really does look exceptional, CGI waves have never looked so powerful, planets have never looked so real and a combination of CGI and practical effects gives everything a gritty, worn look.

That is it and now, without further ado, let me unveil my latest rating system!

Unwatchable Garbage
Good for a rainy Sunday afternoon
Must-See

This movie is rated as: Unwatchable Garbage

Where to begin? As in marriage counselling I should be honest, meaning I should let you all know I normally dislike movies about actors, about Hollywood and about relationships. This however was so good I put aside my prejudices and dived right in...or rather was dragged in by the superb performances and funny script. That's right, a film about divorce is actually lighthearted (at times) and deeply conscious of the fact that humour is needed in these instances. Without it, the film could have been weighed down by its own plot and darkness.

First off, hats off to both Adam Driver and Scarlet Johansson for going all in. These two have excellent on-screen chemistry and seeing them ease in and out of the relationship, sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes fighting, sometimes laughing will remind us all of that one great and terrible relationship in our lives. Their performances are so good, that Noah's naturalistic direction works perfectly and it feels like we're watching a documentary of an unraveling couple rather than just a movie dealing with such issues.

The film is also served by an able supporting cast, with Laura Dern and Alan Alda stealing the show. The latter in particular is world class here, putting scene stealing turn after scene stealing turn. Not because he is loud but because he is quiet, understated, funny and absent. All the while working towards being a wise old sage. Has been nominated for an Oscar? Who cares, the Oscars don't deserve him. Laura Dern is so polished in her role that you forget this is a woman playing a divorce lawyer and start wondering if it is a divorce lawyer playing a woman.

Did I mention Ray Liotta makes an appearance, maybe we could call it a cameo, whatever it is, it works just as well as all the other names mentioned. He is brash and ballsy, the characters we love from Liotta. All of this would be pointless without mentioning the young Azhy Robertson, a child with a bright future and a subtle turn. He is not so kiddy that it looked over rehearsed but it is clear he knows what he is doing from start to finish. Without a capable young hand, the whole movie could have fallen apart.

In this age of cartoonish relationships and reality TV gossip, it is nice to see a well represented love story without all the usual cheesy drivel.

It is just a shame that such a large focus falls on the show business aspect of the characters and the self indulgent, almost arrogant facets it brings.

All in all: Must-See

How do I start this one? Well, maybe with words spoken after Inception a decade or more ago - "I didn't quite get that". For me however, Inception felt pretty straightforward and I understood the plot from start to finish, or rather, I followed the plot from start to finish and left feeling satisfied. With Tenet, I could not follow the plot and no, it's not because it is genius level scripting from super genius Christopher Nolan. it's because the sound mixing is so damn awful, it is quite literally, physically impossible to follow the plot. Form the music to the environmentals to the action and everything in between, you hear it all except the words being spoken by the actors. But we will get to all of that in a bit, let's just discuss the contents of the movie first.

This is a time travel flick, for all the talk of "inversion" that's all this is. It has the usual time travel quirks: can you change the past? Will changing the past affect the future? What happens when you meet your future or past self? What is there is a plot point in the past, which requires action in the future, for that plot point to have ever happened at all? Tick, tick, tick and tick. There is actually very little here that is unique, I would go so far as to say nothing is original in Nolan's script. The bad guy is Russian (the 1980s want their villain back), everyone looks good in a suit in well lit environments (Sam Mendes wants his Bond themes back) and...well, all of it was done better in Avengers: Endgame last year or in Back to the future 30 years ago. This is possibly Nolan's least interesting or thought provoking script.

At this point, I would like to state that this is an action movie, or rather, you would remind me of that. "This ain't a physics phD thesis Watch_Tower, you nerd!" I hear the die hard Nolanites scream. I get that, I really do, so let's discuss the action. Is it any good? Well....it's ok I guess. I was initially truly hyped to see what these inverted sequences, such as the car chase or the fist fights would look like and personally, honestly, they were decent but nothing quite as jaw dropping as the scene altering sequences of Inception (or the Inception inspired chase scenes in Dr Strange). That is the saddest part for me. All the visual flair and practical effects are hidden by fast cuts, so often, so over indulgent that you can easily lose track of who is on screen and who isn't, what is happening and what isn't. Cars roll backwards and pop back onto the road, cool but when it all seems to be happening at about 5 miles per hour, it just isn't exciting. The final battle scene looks more like a really rough paintballing session than a battle to save humanity with some of the smallest, more boring explosions captured for a major blockbuster ever.

This all sounds very very negative, and it is but there are some bright spots. John David Washington is once again very good, slick, calm, physical and just nuanced enough that you believe in him as a just protagonist. Robert Pattinson is ok but he gets to deliver some cheeky comments, injecting a bit of humour into an otherwise very serious script. The rest of the cast do a decent job but Kenneth Branagh as the big bad Russian is just wasted. From his cartoonish accent to his nonexistent motivations (cancer, bla bla, wants to destroy world so...erm...so everyone else can die with him, I guess?) is a huge miss. One of the finest actors on screen and he comes off worse than most Saturday morning TV show baddies.

This is where the problem with the sound mixing comes in yet again. Why does he want to destroy all of time and space (on Earth anyway)? Something to do with having cancer but if it was explained beyond that point, I didn't hear it. Why can't his wife kill him until something happens on the battlefield? No idea, I couldn't hear that too but in the end, it didn't matter anyway. Pattinson's character (I couldn't even hear his name) seems to have died in the final sequence, but his inverted version is alive and knows the main character for many, many years, meaning he is actually from the future, was this ever explained? I don't think so but I can't be sure, as I could barely hear any of his conversations. If it wasn't explained, as I strongly suspect it wasn't, then this is a definite plot hole due to poor writing and not just some timey-wimey.

It may sound weird, after all that I have mentioned to actually recommend the film. I do it for two reasons:
1. It is a good enough excuse to go and visit the cinema in these hard times.
2. This is a genuine, family friendly blockbuster, one of the few of its kind and I would rather it was supported than ignored. I also enjoyed the two central performers and appreciate the craft of the stunt men and engineers who put all the practical work together for this, resisting silly CGI temptation.

Verdict: Good for a rainy Sunday afternoon

Well, here it is at long last, The Snyder Cut....or Zack Snyder's Justice League as it is now known. There has been hug fanfare but I have stayed away from other reviews and most of the social media chatter, heck I haven't even viewed the forum threads on here. The reason is simple, I do not want to be influenced, good or bad. This review ill be in six parts, each part reviewed separately, and then I will provide thoughts on the movie overall.

So let us get started -


Part 1
"Don't count on it Batman"

Part one essentially feels like a prologue to the story which is about to unfold. In the original film, or the Whedon cut as it will likely be known, it was the opening 15 minutes or so. Superman is dead and the forces of evil are now willing to descend upon Earth. It should be a simple enough set up but here Snyder introduces two things which are likely to play a big part in this film, and possibly test my patience: 1. Slow motion everywhere and 2. Extended sequences.

Snyder replays the death of Superman, the same ugly CGI mess it was the first time around, this time with added sound vibrations from Superman's dying screams. It is a sequence which lasts close to ten minutes, showcasing the awakening of the Mother Boxes (we all know what these are by now) and the question is, did we need to see a slow mo sequence of Superman's screams? No. Not at all. It adds nothing to the story that Whedon's dialogue in the original had not already done with a simple explanation.

The scenes which follow with Batman sorrowful of Superman's loss still make little sense. He barely knew him, and while Supe was alive, he was a hugely controversial figure and not the beacon of good imagined here. Longer does not equal better in all things.

A plus however, and something which will raise the score for part one is the Amazon sequence. Yes it is still stupid that the scene starts with a bunch of Amazon warriors standing and staring at the Mother Box. Is that their mission? To stand there for thousands of years, still as a statue? Anyway, Steppenwolfe arrives with his new look, which is pretty good but it serves little purpose. The battle which follows is longer than the Whedon version but ultimately has the same effect, the Mother Box is taken by Steppenwolfe and the fire signal must be lit.

There is no narrative purpose to this extension but it is bloody entertaining. For the first time across the DC movies I found myself rooting for the usually boring Amazonians, and the back and forth over the box is well shot and executed. The narrative suffers again because what exactly is their plan here? To sink the temple into the ocean? Steppenwolfe is supposed to be a fearsome, world destroying warrior but afraid of water? Anyway, much like a lot of Snyder's stuff it is visually appealing if nonsensical. The best part of the prologue.

Throughout the history of cinema, every decade has seen a series of visually stunning films, helmed by directors who understand the craft of the visual medium. Denis Villeneuve stands among that pantheon as one of the finest, so it should come as no surprise that his version of Dune is a spectacular visual achievement. In an age where special effects have reached a peak (where else can they go from here?) it is rare that a movie can still make your jaw drop but let's add this latest iteration of Frank Herbert's classic to the mix. There is a clever use of miniatures and CGI, blending into a mix of vast, city sized spaceships and beautifully realised battles. I was often reminded of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, where he used a large number of extras and clever CGI characters to simulate large scale battles. Dune has no battle of that scale but there are plenty of skirmishes and they look particularly exceptional on the big screen.

The problems of this film however, exist beyond the visual. Herbert's Dune is a dense sci-fi, filled with so many characters and their unique traits that condensing them all into a 2 and a half hour film was never going to work. Yet the characters here feel like cardboard cut outs. Jessica, so key to the first half of the book, a smart, resourceful and powerful person is boiled down to someone who walks around with a grave expression on her face. For anyone who has not read the book, they will wonder what her character even means. Some of the supporting cast fair a bit better, Duncan Idaho is beautiful realised by the charismatic Jason Mamoa, Josh Brolin and Stephen McKinley bring gravitas to their roles but have little to do.

In terms of characters, the movie rests on the slender and in my opinion, lackluster shoulders of Timothee Chalamet. He is a bland, one dimensional Paul Atriedes, admittedly the novel version is a passenger in his own story too, buffeted by the winds of stronger, better written characters and yet, I can't help but feel if this version of Paul was removed, would the movie be affected in any way what-so-ever? He is a ghost of a character, vaguely in the background against a backdrop of brilliant visuals and sound.

The world building is something worth noting, a plus for Denis Villeneuve, who managed to capture the scale and mystique of Herbert's world. The first sight of the worms is awe inspiring and the vast desert vistas will leave you wondering if they were filmed on location or CGI. The mythology of the various families, their motivations, the emperor and grotesque Harkonnens is hinted at. In fact, this may be the biggest issue with the film. So much is hinted at, from the opening credits and the label of "Part One" through to the abrupt ending. Once again my mind drifted to those who had never read the books, would they care? Were the preceding 137 minutes wort ha sequel? Did it even make sense?

Much has been made of David Lynch's 1980s effort, which I have never seen but the major issue often raised is that the movie is strange beyond measure and that it can not be understood but any of other than the hardcore faithful. Yet that strangeness at least sounds worth a look. Villeneuve's bland characters and sadly confusing story-telling is not enticing enough.

The movie begins with a brief voice over and then an introduction of the main Atriedes cast. It's quite different to the opening chapter of the book but a great way of allowing the main "good guys" to be shown to the audience. I like that, and yet the story flickers from one glossy, magazine photoshoot-esque scene to another. How many times must we see Timothee Chalamet in skin tight black dress walk across a beach? Or a sorrowful, furrowed brow of Oscar Isaacs? Villeneuve then introduces us to the villains of the piece, the Harkonnens. Vladimir is a vast, grotesque creature made up of flowing flab and pale, lifeless flesh played by Stellan Skarsgard. There's a certain manic energy to the character in Herbert's book, he is very much a campy villain, as are all the Harkonnens yet he is played far too straight (pardon the pun) by Skarsgard. In fact, maybe due to the current political climate, the camp is entirely removed from the Harkonnen characters, as is the flair and theatrics. The movie is poorer for it.

So then, how does one rate a movie which is proficiently made, technically astounding but without soul?

Good for a rainy Sunday afternoon

Dir. James Mangold

Well...where do I start with this one? I guess the most controversial place to start with this would be to say that this movie is not bad...it's not good either. It kind of just exists, an average take on a once great character. I know that is a controversial statement because the lefty loonies would have you believe this was a rebirth of womanhood and female empowerments where as the mad hatter right wingers would rant and rave that this was woke nonsense where Indy has nothing to do and the women get all the best....grrr!

Neither of those takes is accurate. After the trailers and all the talk from Disney about Phoebe Waller-Bridge having Helena written specifically for her and then being involved in some of the writing process, her character is actually mainly harmless, as is the female, black CIA agent (stupid but harmless). This is probably the movies biggest sin...to just exist for the sake of a cheap cash grab. It neither goes down the full blown, Katherin Kennedy woke route nor does it produce anything new. In fact, the fifth and hopefully final Indiana Jones movie has little to say on any subject matter nor is it fun or exciting enough to be a "dumb action flick".

What we get instead is a curiosity in mediocrity. Harrison Ford returns and actually seems to care, showing more acting ability and charisma here than he has done in probably two decades. Phoebe Waller-Bridge is bland, boring, pointless and a very bad actress. Madds Mikkelsen is the weakest villain in Hollywood history. Toby Jones however does a terrific job with a limited role and anchors some of the movies emotional intent. The rest of the supporting cast is hit and miss and Antonio Banderas is absolutely wasted in his role as a sea faring adventurer.

The action set pieces, something which drove previous films in the franchise are all here and present...a train sequence? Check. A car chase or two? Check. Some fisticuffs and shoot outs? Check. Yet what kills almost each and every one of these scenes is the over abundance of CGI. James Mangold is directing here, the same guy who directed Copland and Logan where a gritty take on violence was par the course, one has to ask, why did he not push for physical stunts instead relying on the now infamously poor Disney CGI.

A case in point is the initial train sequence, where a de-aged Indiana jones ends up running along the roof of said train, moving along at many miles per hour and yet the scene is so poorly shot and designed that apart from some wind pushing his jacket back there is no oomph to it, no realism or believability what-so-ever. Does everyone remember a similar situation in the original Mission Impossible film? That was much better and is almost 30 years old. With that in mind, the one sequence Mangold and co almost get right is the chase through the streets of Algiers. How did they manage such a feat? Well for some parts of it they used real vehicles! The shock, the horror!

This truly was an exercise in modern cash grabbing. A drab, lifeless shell of a movie, much like the drab, lifeless shell of Indiana Jones we see on screen.

This movie is rated as: Unwatchable Garbage