Change Your Image
Tkbn3812
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Meh; starts off a little rocky, recovers a bit then disappoints by the end
Solo was a highly anticipated movie for quite a while. Then it came out and something happened; it hasn't done that well at the box office, especially for a Star Wars movie.
I think it's partly to do with it coming out not too long after Infinity War and Deadpool 2, so maybe cinemagoers are getting a little tired. But there's also the lukewarm critical reception, only receiving 71% on Rotten Tomatoes, not even certified fresh!
I finally watched the movie today, and I thought it got off to an alright albeit rocky start. Alden Ehrenreich sadly doesn't pull off Han Solo, but when you're being compared to Harrison Ford I think it's fair to cut some slack.
The movie kept going, and I think the plot started to get a little messy. Coaxium is the Macguffin of this story, tossed around as this very important fuel source even though I don't think in all the Star Wars movies it's ever been mentioned. The film just never really gets into it; it starts off in one direction before ditching that and going for another direction, before ditching THAT and going in another direction, and it just keeps doing that till the end.
Okay, so the movie does recover a little in the action scenes. Particularly I praise the two heist scenes. But, well, that's the problem; heists can usually be awesome but somehow Solo manages to make them reasonably boring. Other than the explosive action there's no real intrigue since the heist kinda just happens, the audience doesn't really get a clear description of it.
Then the film begins to climax and it gets even more muddled. It's definitely one of those movies that would be a lot clearer the second time (but it'd also be a lot more boring). The climax is really disappointing, it feels like basically nothing happens, I honestly was so confused as I watched the final scene and came to the realisation that the movie was basically already over.
The movie is a visual spectacle, I can say that. It's just not particularly fun. I mean, it's okay but it's not great. It's watchable but it's not mind-blowing. It's just missing something; some flow and sense of direction. It's a shame too, because I was certainly hoping it'd be a good heist movie...and then it wasn't.
Game Night (2018)
Funny movie with plenty to enjoy
Game Night is a great Mystery-Crime-Comedy film. It's got a very basic yet intriguing premise; a group of friends who think they're taking part in a typical game night accidentally involve themselves in a true criminal mystery.
Rachael McAdams and Jason Bateman both shine in their roles. The acting by everyone in the film overall is brilliant but these two have such a great chemistry, I'd love to see more movies from them in the future. Seriously, their couple of Max and Annie are such fun to follow throughout the entire film.
Also, I thought the humour was very good and well balanced with the rest of the film. There were some great jokes all over the film; the whole Gary character, the entire scene where Annie tries to take a bullet out of Max (so perfectly awkward!), the ultra-cringey yet still-humorous Ryan. Also, there's this funny but somewhat weird storyline with Kevin and Michelle; very funny at first but the novelty wears off after a little.
Now for the criticisms. This movie is a great comedy but not a great mystery. Basically because there's no mystery. It's actually pretty disappointing, because the entire movie is meant to revolve around the whole Murder Mystery game concept, and yet it throws that way before even halfway.
In fact, I'm gonna be honest, this movie did a good job with the concept but not a great job. It did a great job on the comedy front, but the Murder Mystery concept could have been so much more! Shame.
The constant twists get a little tiring at the end (at least they self-parody it by the end though). The final act is funny yet too quick. I dunno, I guess the movie just needs a little more refinement here and there, in terms of plot.
Still, it's a great comedy. Just not as great a mystery/crime movie. So don't watch this movie if you're hoping for a great mystery-comedy. Just watch it if you want a great comedy.
Ready Player One (2018)
Spielberg does it again; Great Story, Great Characters, AMAZING visuals!
Ready Player One is one of those movies you just HAVE to see in cinemas. Seriously, you will honestly regret not seeing it on the big screen when you watch it on your TV or computer at home. It is just such a VISUAL masterpiece!
That's not to mention how much fun it is. I mean it, Ready Player One is just such a fun ride with a great story. It's not the most original movie ever made, sure; actually, it's kinda similar to Charlie And The Chocolate Factory. But still, even if for some reason you think this movie isn't that original that doesn't undermine it. Do remember that it's made by Spielberg, one of the BEST directors in history.
The story is pretty simple. Wade Watts, known as Parzival in the Virtual Reality platform known as Oasis, is competing against the rest of the world for three keys that will guarantee him or the winner ownership of the entirety of the Oasis. It's a mad dash for those keys, and an endless amount of wealth for whoever makes it there first.
This movie actually has a simple yet great, wholesome story and message. As always Spielberg has given us a really fun movie while still giving us a meaningful plot with meaningful characters. It even has some pretty decent twists here and there (just wait till you learn the identity of all of Parzival's friends in the Oasis!). I found a bit of the middle to be a little messy, but that's not too big a deal. And, fine, I think the characters could have been developed just a touch more...but that's forgivable.
I've heard one person say this movie looks really cliched...well, I guess maybe it is, but not anymore than any other action movie; they're all predictable to some extent these days. That doesn't change how much fun they are. And, unlike many action movies, this one has a pretty well-crafted story and AMAZING VISUALS.
Seriously, as I already said, you will REGRET not watching this in cinemas. It is actually such an amazing movie visually. I honestly spent the entire movie wondering how Spielberg and the crew actually managed to make the movie look so beautiful. How did they film this beast? There's this one huge battle scene in the movie that made me just want to smile, it was just so epic.
That's the thing, Ready Player One was just one of those movies that made me wanna smile, all the way till I left the theatre. Okay, it's not the best movie I've ever watched, not even close, but I still really enjoyed it and I think watching it in cinemas helped with that (definitely wouldn't have felt like smiling if I'd been at home). It has so many epic moments that give you a rush, it's just such a great movie that Spielberg can add to his still-growing collections of classics.
Okay firstly, I'm kinda young so I don't get most of the 80s references in the movie, so that element of the film is completely lost on me. Secondly, I've read that this movie isn't quite like the book; whether that's a good thing or bad thing I don't know, because I haven't actually read it...usually amongst the book fans, it's bad. I will say this though; I've only watched one movie that I feel accurately reflects the book- The Fault In Our Stars - and even that wasn't perfect. If you watch Ready Player One having read the book and get annoyed that it's not like the book or what you wanted, just don't be surprised.
Basically, all I'm trying to say is that Ready Player One is a visually amazing and fun movie. We don't get action movies that are this visually amazing too often, and it's not going to be in cinemas forever, so don't miss it! Spielberg gives us, as always, a really wholesome plot with great characters, on top of some of the best visuals I've seen in a movie in a long time. Do yourself a favour this week and go watch this in cinemas. You. Will. Not. Regret. It.
Black Panther (2018)
The hype is very real for this both typical and different Marvel movie; go watch it!
Black Panther has been one of the most anticipated movies of 2018, hype building up globally as the world waited for its release. Its near perfect score on Rotten Tomatoes has done nothing but exacerbate this hype, and I can confirm that the hype is definitely justified.
Black Panther probably won't start the conversations about race that some critics might have you thinking, but it's just such a tasteful, entertaining, unique movie that does so much more than your typical Marvel flick.
The film is set about a week after the events of Civil War, where T'Challa's father was killed at a bombing at a UN Convention in Vienna. T'Challa is still struggling to come to terms with the death of his father and the king of Wakanda, the setting of the entire film. It's this struggle that the movie focuses on at first.
The movie unfolds rather neatly, especially for a Marvel film, with the majority of the film centring in Wakanda. (Seems like Marvel's doing a lot more location centralisation; GOTG2 is mainly on Ego's planet, Thor: Ragnarok has a lot on Sakaar...it's better this way).
I think some of the key highlights of Black Panther have to be the characters. Chadwick Boseman shines as T'Challa; seriously, his silent bad-assery is stunning. Shuri, T'Challa's sister, is probably my favourite character in the film, she's just really funny and sweet. Nakia and Okoye are both very powerful female characters in the film, both taking their turns in guiding T'Challa in his times of need.
It's definitely the villain that many have really loved about this movie. Personally, while I loved Killmonger, I think maybe it would've been cooler if we got to delve a little more into his backstory and really understand his motives. Also, Claw is...just there...but when he is, he's fine. Martin Freeman returns as Agent Ross from Civil War, and while I'll readily admit I didn't need to see him back, it's nice to see him take on a bigger role in this movie as we delve more into his character.
I feel like Marvel movies are slowly becoming more and more grounded as Marvel mature, and that definitely shows in Black Panther. The film is easily their most mature film yet; Thor: Ragnarok is plain fun, Spiderman Homecoming is just another packed Spiderman film, but Black Panther feels very deep and important. It explores very important themes, that of race, of T'Challa's moral battles, the theme of leadership and monarchy...Marvel have proved time and again that a superhero movie can be a comedy, and now they've just proven they can also be something so much more meaningful.
You see, Black Panther is a very neat film. You can lose yourself in the stunning action of Avengers: Age of Ultron, but Black Panther will keep you engaged in its meaningful story, embroiled in its chief themes. All the characters shine as they deliver the movie's message about the challenges of being a leader, and the consequences of every action, big and small. I don't want to give the plot away, but its themes are what set it apart from any other Marvel film.
Now, I can't say it's a perfect movie. I did like Killmonger, but let's be honest; at the end of the day, he's just another Marvel villain. Basically that means he just feels like he's there...never much of a huge threat. (I mean we already KNOW that Black Panther survives already, we saw him in the Infinity War trailer!) It's basically the same feeling for Claw. There's also Killmonger's girlfriend who we never really get to see that much of, which is sorta a shame, I guess I can forgive that though.
Also, I think the soundtrack of this movie was a real highlight. I don't like trap music at all but I think it actually blended with this movie reasonably well. The soundtrack also sounded very traditional-African, especially given that Wakanda is a fake-country. That's actually one of the things you have to remember about this movie; it's as though it's trying hard to respect Wakandan culture, even though this culture is completely fictional. But hey, that's fine, right?
In the end, there's isn't all that much to fault about Black Panther. I think its themes are its real strong point. Okay, so while it's got powerful themes at the end of the day it's still a superhero movie, so don't expect to be blown out of your socks. But still, it's just got such great, well-rounded characters that you find yourself really believing in, and a very nice, neat story. If you watch any movie before summer ends (it's summer here in Australia), make sure it's Black Panther. Many critics have called it the best movie in the MCU; I might not go quite as far to make that claim, but it's definitely close. Go and watch it, and make the choice for yourselves.
Casino Royale (2006)
It's...good...
I hadn't watched any Bond movies other than the most recent Spectre, and I decided to go back to Daniel Craig's first outing as Bond back in 2006. Quite honestly, I enjoyed the movie, just not enough.
Casino Royale sees James Bond get his 007 status before going on a sinister mission to take down a man running a ''high-stakes poker game'' that has been betting against big world corporations.
Honestly, I enjoyed a large part of the film. The first half of the film is enjoyable, quality, smart action that breezes by you spectacularly. I highly praise both the chase in Uganda and especially the airport scene. Daniel Craig plays Bond as a matter-of-fact, smug agent for this half of the movie (and, actually, the entire movie really).
It's just the second half of the film that really gets too drawn out and confusing for me. James Bond goes to Montenegro with Vesper Lynd, going to participate in the poker game with Le Chiffre. Everything after this becomes slow and drawn out. Honestly, I would be fine with this slow pacing, except the whole plot felt a bit confusing for me. Maybe I'm just dumb, because this movie got universal acclaim, but it just felt like too much at times for me.
That's not to mention that this movie is 2 hours 20 minutes, and for the entire last half hour I was just waiting for the movie to end. The best of the action is over by about the one hour mark in my opinion, and the entire remainder of the movie just feels boring. The little action that is left is, albeit, good, just not enough.
Okay, so this movie doesn't need to just be non-stop action; that would be unreasonable. But the casino scene is just boring for me, which was a shame since it takes up a large part of the second half of the movie.
Still, I digress; Casino Royale is a good movie. I enjoyed every bit of it, even if not the second half as much as the first half. Daniel Craig shines as James Bond, and the film is visually stunning. I have high hopes for the entire franchise going into the future. Maybe this film didn't wow me as much as it did others, but I still thought it was a good, enjoyable movie.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Definitely one of the best action flicks ever made
Mad Max: Fury Road is, hands down, one of the best action movies I've ever seen. It doesn't take its own sweet time with exposition, with dialogue or with establishment, it's just raw action from start to finish. It takes viewers on what is literally a non-stop ride through the desert, racing all the way to the end.
I haven't watched any other Mad Max movies, but there's no need to watch the other three before watching Fury Road; everything still makes sense. The story follows Max (Tom Hardy) as he finds himself helping a driver of a war rig, Furiosa (Charlize Thereon) and her cargo of five women make their way through the desert. But there's a mob of in upwards of fifty vehicles behind them, hunting them down, led by the sinister Imortan Joe.
Action movies are often slowed down by exposition and dialogue, and it's here that Mad Max: Fury Road excels. It doesn't waste it's time on exposition, not one bit. What's Valhalla? Why do the half-childs need blood sacks? Mad Max doesn't waste its time trying to explain every little detail, and it doesn't need to; the viewers just accept the absurdity of what's going on, letting us focus on the action. And that's the thing; the absurdity of everything is just so genius. Why is there a man playing a guitar on a truck? Who cares, just enjoy the movie!
And the movie doesn't waste its time on dialogue either. This review is already longer than all the words Max says in the movie combined. It's just plain genius; Max is just this raw action hero, and we don't need his wild backstory, with him talking every second. We get to just watch this movie without the normal incessant dialogue of an action flick.
That's where this movie definitely cements itself as one of the best action movies of all time. Never before do I think I've seen a movie that just has such non-stop action from the start to the beginning. The film must have a grand total of three static scenes where the protagonists just talk with one another. Everything else is just raw action, unfolding so quickly. The trucks chasing the war rig down are always in the horizon, and we're reminded of it just enough to remember the imminent threat posed to Max, Furiosa and everyone on the war rig. The actual action itself is so good; there's just so much, and the combat methods of both the attackers and defenders is so unique.
The thing with Mad Max: Fury Road, is that it'll probably be the most unique action film you ever see. Right from the get-go the director throws us headfirst into a dystopian world, forcing us to just accept this and let the movie unfolds. And that's fine. Who cares how absurd everything might seem? Just enjoy the action!
Mad Max: Fury Road is an amazing action movie. I recommend it to just about anyone, and especially to action die-hards. You won't regret it.
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
Simply brilliant
Ocean's Eleven sets out to be an engaging, thrilling yet fun heist movie, and it manages to accomplish just that. It's stunning, it's simple, it's brilliant. Everything about the movie, from the pacing to the acting and dialogue, is done with so much thought and so well.
Ocean's Eleven has quite the typical heist film plot. A criminal, Danny Ocean (played by George Clooney) plans to pull off possibly the biggest heist in the history of the United States, planning to rob $160 million from three casinos in one night. It's no easy task, and he seeks out a team of people (eleven, to be exact), of which include great actors such as Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and Carl Reiner.
I think it's easily the acting that makes this heist film such a standout from other similar films. Matt Damon is so innocent and yet so powerful, and Carl Reiner plays Saul very well, but for me the two best actors had to be George Clooney and Brad Pitt. Together their characters Danny and Rusty lead the team in real style, right from the get-go. Clooney plays his character stunningly, honestly yet with plenty of fun injected into it. Brad Pitt shines in his role, just so...amazing. The highlight of his character for me was easily when he casually got Basher out of an arrest.
The dialogue in this movie couples itself perfectly with the acting. It's just such witty, fun dialogue. It's the type of dialogue many may cringe at, but if you're watching this movie you've got to remember that it's just trying to have fun. Everything from the content, the timing, the delivery of the lines, is done so well.
Personally, and rather obviously, the highlight of the film had to be the heist. The movie doesn't waste time getting to the heist like other heist films (I'm looking at you Fast Five...which actually copied an awful lot from this movie), and once it gets to the heist it doesn't muck around. It just rolls with it, and it has plenty of witty fun along the way. The heist itself is clever, it's smart, it's brilliantly thought out by the characters and more importantly the writers of the movie.
My two only gripes are rather minor; the ending and Basher's accent. I'm not even British but the cockney accent that Don Cheadele puts on can't possibly fool anyone; it's just so unnecessary and whoever suggested he use one should be fired. Also, I don't want to spoil the ending but I feel it could have gone just a little further. It's still great, it's just that it could have been perhaps more satisfying. Still, that's why there are sequels.
Ocean's Eleven is just such a clever and yet heist film. I highly recommend it to anyone who loves a thriller or is just looking for a quick way to kill two hours. You won't regret it.
Baby Driver (2017)
Kinda overrated; what really makes this film stand out as an action film?
Baby Driver has been remember as one the best action movies of 2017. And yet, once the hour and half had passed and the film had finished, the only word I had for the movie was disappointment.
I had high hopes for the film; it's a standard car action film, centring around a driver nicknamed 'Baby' who works in a crime heist ring, helping to pull off jobs as the getaway driver after each heist. It's a typical premise, and yet it's made quite fresh by the music, with each scene choreographed stunningly to each song, and each song chosen to suit the scenes perfectly.
And yet, I found myself quite disappointed on the whole by the film. First of all, it's not quite like a movie has never centred around music, especially older music as in this film, before. Guardians of the Galaxy is the first example that immediately comes to mind. This idea that Baby Driver is so 'original' because of its emphasis on music choreographed to the action scenes seems somewhat rubbish to me; I agree that it is done very well, and that it makes the film 'fresh', but I hardly think it makes the film unique in any way.
This is the point I am trying to get at. Yes, Baby Driver is still a passable action movie. But by no means is it notably more original than other action films. The music, something that has been lauded by critics, is admittedly impressive, but what action film doesn't have music in it? And this is where I finally get to the plot of the movie; there's really nothing particularly unique about it, either. On the whole it's rather predictable; Baby gets essentially blackmailed back into the crime business for 'one last job', Baby has a tragic backstory, Baby falls for a girl, Baby begins to have second thoughts about everything...it's employing quite a decent amount of cliches.
Okay, so a movie that isn't unique doesn't necessarily make it bad. All I'm trying to say is Baby Driver is just not as impressive as critics have made it out to be. Moreover, I think the bigger issue of the film is the plot rather than the originality.
Without spoiling the plot of the movie, the payoff for one and a half hours leads to a rather dull climax and concluding scene. The whole climax is just such a disappointment for me, and it's kinda hard to say why without ruining the movie. Still, I feel like the plot's two main problems are its predictability and ultimate disappointment.
I don't mean to focus on the negatives of the film. Don't get me wrong, the movie is good. Great acting is coupled with the brilliant music and amazing chase choreography. But the film just doesn't stand-out in any way for me. It deserves praise, because it definitely is a good action movie. It's just not 93% on Rotten Tomatoes good. Watch the film if you want a film filled with action. But don't expect a flawless work of art; as good as Baby Driver is, it's not perfect.
Get Out (2017)
Masterful, brilliant, spectacularly crafted horror movie that will have you on the edge of your seat
Get Out is easily the best movie of 2017, managing to get the highly coveted 99% on Rotten Tomatoes. Once I finally decided to watch the movie, it was easy to see why.
The basic idea behind the plot is this man, Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) has decided to go spend the weekend with his girlfriend, Rose (Allison Williams) and her parents, in an isolated home in Alabama. But, as the weekend progresses (and without revealing too much of the plot), Chris begins to discover something truly sinister.
Jordan Peele, the director and writer, crafts this horror film so delicately, being sure to reveal things slowly and carefully as the film progresses. The plot is simply so original, unique and ingenious, and credit is due to Jordan Peele for all his decisions. He has us viewers believing one thing for the majority of the film, only to dash that aside for a far more sinister truth. This horror movie uses so many common horror tropes, and yet it expertly embraces and twists them into what truly is a masterpiece.
The film also centres around racism, primarily the more subtle, liberal type that has arisen in society in modern times. Jordan Peele intertwines this message of racism so delicately throughout the film, and even though it's a horror movie there's plenty of poignant commentary of the state of racism today.
Personally what I loved about the movie was the pacing, which allowed subtle hints to be sprinkled throughout the movie before the dramatic, sinister reveal. I also loved Kaluuya's acting; it was so raw and believable, and it really had you convinced of the true horror of what was going on throughout the film. Every second of the film we see his character responding and coming to terms with everything going on around him; it's genius.
There were a few things that I didn't love about the film, but they're mostly plot related and I don't want to give spoilers. In my opinion it's not the "perfect" movie, but it's so close the difference is honestly negligible. It's especially remarkable given that Jordan Peele is a first time director. Everything about this film - the writing, the acting, the pacing - is so clever, and there is praise due to everyone who worked on this movie. It really does prove that the world of Hollywood still has plenty more ideas to explore yet.
Happy Death Day (2017)
Very enjoyable thriller-horror-comedy-romance-satire film (yeah, it's all of those)
Happy Death Day takes the classic Groundhog Day time-loop concept and gives it a rather unique spin. The basic premise is that there's this girl, Theresa (though everyone calls her Tree), who is brutally murdered on her birthday. However, after she is murdered she wakes up back in bed, where she started that morning. This keeps happening; she wakes up, she goes through her day, she gets murdered...and she wakes up again. It's an even more terrifying take on Groundhog Day; until Tree figures out who her murderer is and stops them, she will keep dying and reliving her day.
Happy Death Day has brilliant acting, especially from its lead Jessica Rothe. I thought her performance of Tree was very gripping, mainly since it flows so well from her carefree, sassy attitude into a woman gripped with raw fear and terror, before constantly alternating between the two personalities (and more).
That's one of the things to note about Happy Death Day; it tries to be a lot of things. There's romance, there's horror, there's mystery, there's comedy and there's even some satire of college girls in a Mean Girls style (I just read all this off Wiki and I agree with the point raised.) I also agree with the Wiki page calling it 'laudatory'; the choice to do this is handled very well, and even though the film is primarily horror all these sub-genres are shoehorned in rather nicely.
The three primary genres of the film are definitely comedy, mystery and horror. The horror that Tree faces every time she is murdered is coupled brilliantly with the mystery, as she tries to find her murderer. Both of these blend very well with the humour, due to Tree's level of sass throughout the movie. I think this combination of genres is very clever, especially when done right like in this movie, and kudos to the writer and director for making this blend work so well.
The time-loop film concept is a rather lucrative one in any movie, and when it's played with well you can get classic gems like Groundhog Day (in fact, it's mentioned in the film and, ironically, Tree hasn't watched it). I haven't personally watched Groundhog Day but I have watched Edge Of Tomorrow, which is basically the Tom Cruise hard-core action version of Groundhog Day. While I enjoyed Happy Death Day, it doesn't always handle the time-loop section of the film with as much 'rawness' as those films. More time is dedicated in EOT and GD to the whole fear of time looping, but I suppose Tree's fear is focused more on the thought of getting murdered rather than the actual time loop itself.
I highly recommend this film for horror-mystery lovers. The film isn't hard-core horror, mainly since it's juggling many different sub-plots, but it's definitely an enjoyable watch nonetheless.
American Made (2017)
Impressive story and stunning acting from Tom Cruise
Tom Cruise continues to prove his worth as an A-List actor in this film based on the true story of Barry Seal, an American Pilot turned DEA agent and drug smuggler in the 70s-80s. The film can be praised for the brilliant acting from Tom Cruise, as well as the telling of the story in an organic yet simple manner, taking the viewers across a decade of Seal's life seamlessly.
Having watched many Tom Cruise films, such as the Mission: Impossible movies and Edge Of Tomorrow, I had high expectations watching American Made. The film definitely did not disappoint. Even though the film is not so action-heavy like most Tom Cruise films, Tom Cruise plays his character of Barry Seal, a smug man way in over his head who, on more than one occasion, bites of more than he can chew. It's a little jarring to hear Tom with a southern twang, and at times he has a bit of difficulty maintaining it, reverting to whatever his natural accent is (I'm not American so the difference is probably more obvious to Americans). Still, other than the twang there's really nothing to fault about Tom's acting.
Doug Liman, who has previously worked with Tom Cruise, directs the film very well, giving it an almost indie, homely feel at times. Shaky cameras and quick transitions between scenes help to evoke this. His choice to have Barry Seal narrating at times does seem a little strange at times, mainly since it's not nearly frequent or consistent enough. Still, the choice to give the film this more indie look is quite clever, especially given that the film's material is based around a simple man.
Personally I thought the film's pacing could have been a little better. Sometimes the film does go a little fast, especially at the start, which holds it back from a 9 or 10 star rating in my opinion. Still, the film is a very quality watch, and I definitely recommend it for action-fans looking for a gripping true story.
Man on a Ledge (2012)
Good enough movie, enough action and suspense to keep you watching
Man On A Ledge may not have gotten stellar reviews from critics, and it may not be perfect, but it's an adequate enough action-thriller film that should keep viewers entertained for two hours.
The premise of the movie seems simple enough at first. An escaped fugitive threatens to jump off a building in New York, capturing the attention of everyone beneath him on the streets and all the police. He's doing this so that no one notices a robbery he has cooked up being undertaken just across the street.
Of course, the plot is a fair deal more complicated than that. The man has conspired to steal a jewel from the building across the road to prove that he didn't steal the jewel two years earlier...yes, it's a very confusing plot premise. It's one of the main reasons that many found these film unappealing; its unbelievable plot.
But the film is more enjoyable if you try ignore the unbelievable plot. The premise of a man threatening to jump off a building is played with well, keeping us engaged in the film. Sure, it is stretched out quite a bit, but it's played with just well enough that the audience doesn't get bored. We are reminded of his presence just enough that we don't forget about him and not so much that it feels forced.
The acting isn't exactly stellar, with Sam Worthington, playing the main character, feeling a little dull at times. Regardless, his character is engaging enough, his character's raw desperation coming across clearly in the way Worthington acts. Despite the confusion it's hard not to feel even a bit of sympathy for his character, for reasons divulged as the movie progresses.
The action scenes are what give the film its edge. The man on the ledge is juggled cleverly with the heist going on in the building across the street. Action throughout the film is slow at first, but the scenes gradually speed up, becoming more enjoyable and gripping as the film climaxes, until the satisfying ending.
Honestly, the film isn't flawless, but it's a fun enough watch. If you aren't one to overlook plot holes, not-so- stellar acting and an unbelievable story, then this isn't the film for you. But casual viewers and action-lovers will be entertained. It has engaging action scenes and an interesting heist that no doubt should keep the most action- thirsty among us satisfied for two hours.
The Fate of the Furious (2017)
Won't fail to entertain, even with some flaws it's still packed with all the typical action of a FAF film
The Fate of the Furious continues the highly-profitable Fast and Furious franchise. The film certainly lives up to the expectations of previous films, with all the action and adventure one has come to expect from the franchise, along with one of their most sinister villains yet. And yet the film takes a darker turn towards its storytelling, with important characters pushed out of the limelight and new characters not developed enough. Regardless, the film is certainly an entertaining watch, balancing out the characters and action to deliver a satisfying new installment in the ever-expanding FAF franchise.
The film tells the story of Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), who teams up with master-hacker Cipher (Charlize Theron) while in Cuba, and turns his back on his old team. This old team consists of Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson), Letty Ortiz (Michelle Rodriguez), Roman Pearce (Tyrese Gibson), Tej Parker (Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges) and, for some reason, Ramsey (Nathalie Emmanuel). The team is recruited by Mr Nobody (Kurt Russell), to stop Cipher from her plans. Mr Nobody has also recruited Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), the villain from Furious 7, which naturally angers the team, most especially Hobbs.
Alongside Mr Nobody is his new assistant, Little Nobody (Scott Eastwood). Little Nobody is a decent character, however he is not quite perfect, for example he is inexplicably a driver almost as adept as members of the old team. More importantly, the writers have attempted to give him quite a bit of character development in his transition just before the final act from stringent-rule-follower who comes across as an idiot at times, to a rule-breaker. However with limited screen time this is done too suddenly, and not actually dealt with for the remainder of the film; this makes it somewhat unbelievable. Still, the character is a fair addition to the old team, which has morphed significantly into having only four of the eight original members from Fast Five; he will definitely need more characterisation in future films, though.
The film can be applauded for its very powerful villain. Charlize Theron does a stunning job playing the cold hearted villain of Cipher, without a doubt the most sinister villain the franchise has ever seen. Her character is always in control, right until the end, and her characterisation is done very well throughout the movie. Her escape at the end is certainly a disappointment, however this without a doubt is merely setting the film up for sequels.
The film also has action sequences which live up (mostly) to the reputation of the franchise. The past two films have had three main sequences, however this film instead opts for two main sequences; New York and the submarine in Russia (the Cuban race doesn't exactly count). The submarine sequence is very well done, primarily because Dominic is back on his team's side and the scene features all the action and death-defying stunts the franchise generally features. However, while the New York sequence is mostly impressive (especially in all the cars being controlled), it's also conflicting; Dominic's team show up only towards the end to try apprehend him, and are foiled by Dom fairly quickly. The reason the sequence is conflicting is because of the rather small amount of time spent on focusing on the 'good' side, instead focusing on Cipher's team hacking into all cars around New York, and Dominic stealing the nuclear football. Usually FAF action sequences feature the bad being chased by the good, but here the bad is actually Dominic, the good are his team, and the chase is merely him being cornered by them and managing to escape fairly quickly. However Deckard and Letty do manage give chase. Dom 'kills' Deckard, but nearly manages to let Letty escape with the nuclear football; it's Cipher's other henchman, Connor Rhodes, who gets it off her.
Dom turning against his team, or as he sees them, his family, was the centre of every trailer released. The reason that he did so was never revealed, but just before the New York sequence this is done; Dom's former girlfriend, Elena Neves (Elsa Pataky) has been kidnapped, and it is further revealed that Elena had an accidental pregnancy with Dom, presumably between the events of Fast Five and Fast and Furious 6, and thus their son (still a baby) has also been kidnapped. This reveal is shocking, and serves as a powerful motive for Dom to work for Cipher; if he goes against her, both Elena and their son will die.
Thus, as a result of nearly letting Letty escape, Cipher kills Elena. It's here where the film takes quite a dark turn, cementing Cipher as a powerful villain. Elena's death is quite horrible, and the way they kill her feels somewhat ill-suited for an action series, belonging more in a horror film.
The film makes quite the number of callbacks to previous films. There are many throwaway lines to previous films, especially Furious 7, with the return of Deckard's brother and villain of film 6, Owen Shaw, in the last act (although he only gets a line or two). Although perhaps confusing viewers who aren't as familiar with the franchise, the callbacks help establish the franchise, with two more sequels already lined up, as a series.
The film does, however, push the old team out of the limelight. Every line Roman delivers is comic relief, with him as a character progressing nowhere in the film. Tej and Ramsey are also pushed away, although they seem to be flirting throughout the film, an alright addition to their otherwise non-existent characterisation. Perhaps the primary problem with the team is that it's missing Dom; let's hope the 9th brings back the team as strong as ever.
Overall, The Fate of the Furious is an entertaining action flick which will no doubt entertain. It may not quite meet your expectations based off the last three immensely popular installments, but it won't fail to satisfy.
The Simpsons: The Musk Who Fell to Earth (2015)
Disappointing, an episode with no clear vision
This episode of the long-time running series The Simpsons proves that the show is slowly losing the quality it once had. It is misguided and unclear in the way it is written, and even fails to present any memorable jokes.
The basic premise of the episode is inventor Elon Musk descending in a spaceship into Springfield, starting to hang out with Homer, being hired and then fired by Mr Burns, and finally leaving the town. It sounds like a decent outline, yet it is executed very poorly. The biggest problem in this episode is this; the episode lacks an engaging plot, and rather flows like several ideas pieced haphazardly together.
The episode begins, strangely enough, without a couch gag. It then goes into a rather strange story; a bald eagle eats some of the Simpsons' pet bird, and as revenge they capture it. After nursing it back to health (which makes no sense...wasn't this revenge?), the eagle is burnt up by the spacecraft that Musk descends into Springfield in. At this moment one has to check the episode isn't a Treehouse of Horror. The writers truly did not only add a nonsensical moment into the episode, but also literally burnt up the first few minutes of the episode spent on the bald eagle. This truly seems pointless; the family don't even care that the eagle they got so attached to is now dead.
The episode continues to limp for the remainder of its length, with weird and inexplicable moments throughout. One of the biggest problems of the episode is when Elon Musk, now hanging out with Homer Simpson, begins turning some of Homer's nonsensical thoughts into brilliant ideas. Musk has a ridiculous faith in Homer Simpson, reminiscent of Herbert all the way back in Season 2 (Oh Brother, where art thou), and yet this faith is never really tested. We never do see these paper meatballs, or a cream cup that dissolves as sugar into coffee, or anything else that Homer suggests, and yet Musk seems to love Homer. So used to seeing the negative consequences when Homer's ridiculous ideas failing miserably in episodes such as ''Beyond Blunderdome'', the aforementioned ''Oh Brother where art thou'', and ''Trash of the Titans'', it is strange and perhaps disappointing that these ideas were never conceived in this episode.
For the remainder of the episode many things happen that make little sense to the plot. Bart manages to hack into one of Musk's self driving cars and, with Lisa, goes on a joyride around Springfield. At first it seems similar to the ending of ''Mobile Homer'', albeit in a car and not a gigantic RV. Yet Lisa and Bart get to no mischief in the car; you read right, nothing happens. They get in the car, see the town, and that's it. It even ever so briefly appears that they are going to gatecrash Burns and Musk's gathering at his plant, but they don't even do that.
Smithers at no point trusts Musk, believing he's up to no good. He tries to tell Burns this, but Burns merely shrugs it off. It turns out that Musk WAS up to no good; he was spending at a pace that was putting Burns' plant into deficit. Yes, his plan all along was to create an environmentally friendly Springfield, not caring about the money. This is not even remotely evil; all of Smithers' worrying that Musk is up to no good is foreshadowing, and yet leads to nothing.
Homer decides he does not want to be friends with Musk anymore, and Marge shows Homer how to ''break up'' with Musk. This is executed rather strangely, especially the timing of when Homer chooses to break up with Musk, just after Musk saved his life from Mr Burns' assassins. Burns' attempt to assassinate Musk is ridiculous enough, but Homer breaking up with Musk at such a moment is even more ridiculous.
We are ever so briefly reminded of the beginning of the episode when Musk gives the family a birdhouse, before he leaves Springfield forever. And, with that, he leaves behind what truly is a disappointing episode.
Everything is very mismatched; Homer and Musk's relationship, Burns' wishing, trying, and failing, to assassinate Musk, Smithers' suspecting Musk of more evil intentions, and Bart and Lisa randomly going on a joyride. The newer episodes of The Simpsons are frowned upon for their ridiculous plots; this episode should be frowned upon for the very absence of a plot, at least one that is coherent or engaging. It plays like four or so different ideas that the writers decided to string together without any proper thought. The episode is of such poor quality it makes such an episode as ''Kill the Alligator and Run'' look like ''Who Shot Mr Burns'' (well, perhaps that's an exaggeration, but you get my point). It marks one of the poorest episodes in the on the whole underwhelming Season 26.
Mayday: Deadly Silence (2016)
More ACI at its best
Air Crash Investigations continue to create quality investigations into crashes, year after year, season after season. This episode is no different, investigating the death of a famous golfer, Payne Stewart, in a Learjet crash.
The show still does very well with its CGI, reenactments and explanation of the crash.
It's easy to tire of the formula constantly used in these episodes, which has not changed for many seasons. It's simply a constant repeat of the reenactment-interviews-investigation script, which creates episodes very similar to one another. This episode presents nothing new contrasting to other episodes, and does not even interview any family of those involved.
Yet this is still quality documentary-TV, with ACI still performing well after more than 10 years. It doesn't have the emotional, heart-heavy feel that earlier episodes once had, but there is plenty to look forward to, with episodes of season 16 set to feature 4 recent crashes within the last decade, and still fresh in many of our memories.
Hundraåringen som klev ut genom fönstret och försvann (2013)
Great film, adapts the book almost perfectly...almost
The Hundred Year Old Man Who Climbed Out The Window and Disappeared is a best-selling 2009 Swedish book. Now, it has been adapted into this 2013 film, and is certain to entertain with its pure unique and fun plot.
The film is as unique as the book, with a ridiculous yet humorous plot about the 100 year old man who runs away from his retirement home and gets into all sorts of mess along the way.
The film is paced well, with the narration of the old man keeping the film moving, and helping to transition as smoothly as possible from the present to Allan's past. The wild plot, pieced together by every event in the story, shapes the characters and makes the film even more humorous, as viewers truly appreciate the great coincidences that help keep them, especially Allan, out of trouble.
However, the film doesn't quite adapt the book perfectly. The book is quite a long read, and so naturally many plot elements needed to be left out. While many readers would have seen this as a negative, instead I think it makes the film much easier to watch, or else it would have been too long and overflowing.
Regardless, more time could definitely have been spent on Allan, the 100 year old's, younger days. Many plot points were also changed, for example the omission of Allan's first Bali visit as a younger man. The book is also better at linking Allan's youth with the present. Even so, with such a complex and long book there was great risk in creating a bad movie; the producers certainly did not fail.
The book is a fun read, and this film is a fun watch. Yes, the book was better, however this isn't a surprise; if the entire book really were adapted it'd be a significantly longer film. The film is still definitely a great watch; just make sure you have subtitles though, a lot of the film is in Swedish.
The Expendables 2 (2012)
Improves on the first film; exactly what to expect from an action movie
The Expendables 2 is a welcome improvement on the first film, which is as decent as an action film can get. It has the foundations of a proper, well-developed plot, with good characterisation of most of the major characters.
However it does not properly characterise all the Expendables, leaving several merely ''there'' and nothing else. Still, it does better than the first, which managed to characterise merely protagonists Barney and Lee to a considerable extent.
While the film isn't remarkably better than the first, the action is certainly more interesting and entertaining. The final airport scene climaxes very well, and reunites all the characters from throughout the movie, including Chuck Norris' character, who just coincidentally shows up at the perfect time.
However, while it manages to capture the protagonists very well, the main antagonist isn't quite as terrifying as in the first movie. Regardless, his character is definitely not likable; his name even resembles ''villain''.
Stunts are not particularly remarkable either, in many regards recycling that of the first movie, for example their plane coming in low when shooting. Combat, however, does improve, which can be seen in the airport scene; perhaps the very fact that this scene takes place in the daytime and not the night, like the first film, improves it.
Overall, this film is a well-paced action film that is worth a watch. While some may see the plot as just a typical run-of-the-mill action story, the movie itself compensates with good characters and actors, bringing these all together to make a good movie. It may not be perfect, but it is as much as one can expect from an action movie.
Home Alone: The Holiday Heist (2012)
Bland; It's missing something
Home Alone 1 is a memorable and classic Christmas film that is very enjoyable to watch. This film, the fifth and final in the Home Alone series, fails to live up to the first film 22 years on.
It's hard to quite put my finger on it, but the film is missing something. At first glance it seems to have everything that the first film had; a main character that sets traps to catch dim-witted criminals using plenty of traps. Yet it's hardly a delightful watch, for whatever reason.
Don't completely dismiss the film, though. It does try to entertain with a plot that actually develops very well, and comedic elements thrown in to keep the film progressing. However, it lacks that beautiful feel of the first and second films, both of which are very entertaining.
It's pointless of me to review this film, since even though I'm sure there's something missing from this film, I can't work out what is. It could in fact be the fact that it offers nothing significant since the first movie, and feels like old material.
I can say with 100% confidence that you will not regret skipping this Home Alone movie. Stick with Home Alone 1, and if you have time Home Alone 2 as well.
Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker (2006)
Decent film, but has obvious flaws throughout
Stormbreaker is a 2006 film about a 15 year old, Alex Rider, who is recruited into the MI6 spy agency and assigned a mission to expose the plot of an evil mastermind billionaire.
This British film, based off a novel, was a decent watch. The basic premise is of a teenage James Bond. The film can be applauded for a decent plot centering around the main character, although this plot is far from perfect as I will mention later on.
But issues in the production of the film are quite clear. Fighting scenes were poorly choreographed, with the apparent use of quick camera pans completely overloading and confusing these scenes. The colour scheme seems ever so slightly saturated throughout the film, which seems strange seeing as though this is a fairly recent 2006 movie.
The plot too wasn't perfect. The main character Alex is whisked from his normal life to spy training, and then his mission, all in a few weeks. It makes absolutely no sense that MI6 would choose to send a new teenage recruit on this risky mission in place of an experienced spy. This, alongside other glaring plot holes, make the film rather unbelievable.
The plot is fairly predictable, and hardly has you on the edge of your seat. Clearly in writing the screenplay adaptation of the novel, key elements were skimmed over or overlooked, creating a strangely paced film plot.
While the acting of Alex Rider is done very well by actor Alex Pettyfer, one notable misfire was in the character of Alan Blunt, playing the MI6 director. However, perhaps the error was not in the abilities of actor Bill Nighly, but rather in the poor characterisation of his character by the writers. This character comes off as harsh, insensitive, and interestingly enough blunt, after his name, potentially leading me to believe this character was intentionally written as such. Regardless, his character is definitely unpleasant.
This film cannot qualify as a notable or impressive spy film, but it has the foundations of a good movie. While predictable, the plot definitely has potential, and had more time been spent on its development it would have vastly improved. Clearly more care needed to be taken in choreography of the fight scenes.
However, the film isn't a horrible watch. There are definitely worse ways to spend one and a half hours.
Mission: Impossible II (2000)
Definitely improves on the first film, with better action and a simpler plot
Mission Impossible II, the sequel to the original 1996 film, is a definite improvement in many regards. While the general consensus amongst critics seems to criticise the weak plot and poor characters, it doesn't focus on the positives of the film, namely the improved action, a simple narrative, and a brilliant music score.
Mission Impossible I is renowned for a lack of action, with focus devoted to developing a plot so complicated no one has a chance of following it without pausing to think about it. Ethan Hunt is about the only person who gets any proper character development, and the film feels as though it drags on forever and ever (the theft of the NOC files felt like an eternity!)
But Mission Impossible II is paced better, with an easier to follow plot, more character development and a music score that is far less boring than that of the first. Maybe the first has a more engaging plot (as confusing as it is), and the action scenes of this film may be unnecessary in some regards, but these aren't sins to the movie, and for the most part it is entertaining.
The film stars actor Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, who, other than a new haircut, brings back the same stunning character from the first into the dangerzone. Tom Cruise, also acting as producer for the film, insisted on doing his own stunts, and does a brilliant job of portraying his character.
The story is simple, which for some is reason for criticism, however I view it as a positive. Hunt is assigned the task of recruiting master-thief Naya (Thandie Newton), for a mission to take down suspected mole of IMF Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott), who is planning to release a disease, Chimera, and charge a hefty price on its antidote. In recruiting her, the pair form an intimate relationship, one of which will prove risky in regard to the mission.
Having recruited the help of tech-whiz Luther (Ving Rhames) from the first film, and pilot Billy (John Polson), the four travel to the land down under, Australia, with Naya sent to infiltrate Sean's mansion in Sydney, using a method other than her thieving capabilities. It is this that bothers many viewers, as Naya plays a role no more than a romantic interest for most of the movie. However, there was only one major female antagonist in the first movie who did little more, so this is still an improvement.
The film takes place in Sydney, the largest city in Australia. Perhaps being my home city I am biased, but it is great to finally see Sydney in an action film. However, unsurprisingly, the errors in geography bother me. There is absolutely no way the team would have landed in the middle of a desert, near Broken Hill, a town more than 1000km from Sydney, when arriving. out of the way to be doing so. It's moments like these that would make people think Sydney is smack-bang next to the desert; it isn't even close.
I cannot see how Sean and Ethan get onto a semi-rural road towards the end of the film in the motorbike chase. I don't believe there is any such road, at least near to the CBD, though I could be wrong. It's also a shame the Sydney Harbour Bridge isn't part of the motorcycle chase in some way. However, this would have made even less geographical sense than it already did.
There is also the fact that Sean somehow gets his car into Darling Harbour, which would have definitely turned eyes in a pedestrian- only precinct, but we can disregard this minor detail.
The film can be commended for its romance, which while not perfect, is far better than the sloppy attempt at one in the first film. It also allows for development of another character other than Hunt himself. Sean Ambrose is a fairly decent villain, and is at least known for the entire film unlike Job in the first, allowing proper development of his character. However, just about every character other than Hunt could have done with more development.
Action in this film is far better than that of the first. Combat scenes are much more engaging, including most prominently the motorcycle scene, and the theft scene is paced a lot better than that of the NOC files in the first. As mentioned the plot is far simpler, although there are many plot holes. The film's original cut was at almost 3 hours, which explains why many parts of the film do not make sense.
The film features a score by Hans Zimmer who, infamous for his intertwining of electronic instruments into orchestras, brings a stunning rendition of the Mission Impossible theme, with electronic guitars and percussion that bring out the most intense action scenes.
It's a shame more Australians didn't star in this film; John Polson is the only actor who plays an Australian in the film, who unsurprisingly has a stereotypical Steve-Irwin styled accent, and says the word 'mate' way too much. You'll be hard pressed to find an Aussie who actually sounds like that. While Richard Roxburgh is an Australian, his character Hugh Stamp is (apparently) South African.
Overall, this film is a good watch. Perhaps the plot is simplistic, with characters who need more development. However, the action is far better, with the movie not being as close to slow and boring as the first. The romance is also greatly improved. Setting the film in Sydney, a city little seen on the silver screen, was a wise choice.
This film is well worth a watch. Don't expect the best movie you've ever seen, but don't expect nothing either; you will be rewarded.
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
A brilliant story, with stunning acting, and a gripping plot
Catch Me If You Can is quite a unique film, one of which is to be commended for the beautiful way it tells a magnificent story. Directed by the great Steven Spielberg, it recounts the true story of Frank Abagnale, one of history's greatest imposters. Spielberg has portrayed a story that has viewers connecting with the characters, with a well-paced narrative that is bound to both impress and shock the audience, alongside spectacular acting, and a simple yet intriguing musical score to couple the most tense scenes.
Frank Abagnale is your typical 60s teenager. A 16 year old, he is an only child living with his parents, a simple yet sufficient life.
But his whole world is turned upside over the course of a few weeks. When the IRS come after Frank's father for unpaid taxes, the family is forced to move into a small apartment; not much time passes before the two parents separate. This is the turning point for Frank, and sends him on a journey that will go down in history as one of the most remarkable stories of an imposter.
So begins a story that spans three years, three jobs, almost $6 million in stolen money, counterfeit checks, not to mention a wedding, and tells the story of both the teen on his crime spree, and the FBI agent who will stop at nothing to catch him.
Frank Abagnale is played by Leonardo DiCaprio, with FBI agent Carl Hanratty played by Tom Hanks. These are two big names of Hollywood that do remarkably well in their individual roles. DiCaprio plays Abagnale in a realistic manner, bringing out the teenager's sly nature, while also taking into account his more human side, of which pushes him out on his journey in the first place.
Tom Hanks was an excellent choice as the FBI agent; his acting is convincing, as he portrays the workaholic as a tough, no-nonsense guy who has a troubling backstory and, deep down, a heart.
Frank Abagnale Senior, played by Christopher Walken, plays a pivotal role in the plot. It is the financial troubles that Frank Junior sees his father in that in turn encourage him to set out on his journey of three jobs.
Amy Adams, who as Brenda Strong plays Abagnale's bride, seems to have been an unusual inclusion. Nothing eventually comes of this proposed marriage, and as convincing an actor as DiCaprio is, it at no point seems as though Abagnale is truly in love. Perhaps this is intentional, however, considering the outcome.
There are several minor characters in the film, including Martin Sheen as Brenda's father and Natalie Baye as Frank's French mother. Cheryl Ann is played by Jennifer Ann, in a short and unnecessary scene of which, again, nothing comes out of.
It is in fact from the moment that Frank leaves the US that everything begins to fall apart. The scene of which involves his eventual arrest in France sees DiCaprio let down his performance a little, switching from a character who is in control to that of one now distressed. After this, the relationship between Abagnale and his capturer, Hanratty, is built up; for the most part this is successful, however there are some flaws. The scene where Abagnale nearly leaves the country again is not particularly realistic. Clearly Hanratty had enough faith in Abagnale to believe he would not leave, and while this is what happens, surely he would not take the risk?
The film features yet another unique and beautiful score from John Williams, who approaches scenes of action with a jazzy motif, of which makes a two minute debut in the opening credits. The actual theme for the movie contrasts this motif, and is a pleasant tune with hemiolas, a trademark Williams-styled theme reminiscent of ET and Jurassic Park in its instrumentation. This score is truly a positive for the film.
However, as with all films based on true stories, there are certain aspects that need to be pointed out. There was no planned wedding in Abagnale's real life; while he does eventually marry, this is actually after his release from prison. His parents were never in financial trouble, and in fact Frank's first victim of fraud was his father himself.
While Frank did have a relationship with an FBI agent, it was not to the extent seen in the film. He most certainly did not call him every Christmas; the real Frank Abagnale called the prospect of calling the man in charge of capturing him absurd.
One thing that isn't stressed enough in the film is the fact that Abagnale committed most of his fraud before the age of 19. There is no way that Abagnale looked 28 (DiCaprio's age at time of filming) when he was only a teenager, and if it were made more clear he was a teen for most of the film the audience may have been even more impressed by his crimes.
However the film is right to portray a criminal in a positive light; the real Abagnale has gone on to assist the FBI and other crime agencies in counter-fraud measures, from his experience in the real world.
Overall, this is a pleasant watch that will certainly leave a positive impression on viewers. Remarkable acting from DiCaprio and Hanks are the highlights of the film, with a plot that, regardless of inaccuracies, is simple yet interesting. The music score by far is a positive, with in-depth character development that keeps the audience engaged throughout the film.
Although the film has flaws specifically in its romance, it wins in almost every other aspect, keeping viewers connected to the story. The film certainly is to be commended in the way it portrays a troubled teenager and the man sent out to stop him. It most definitely succeeds at telling the true story of a real fake.
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
Disappointing; this is a sequel, right?
2 Fast 2 Furious, the sequel to The Fast and The Furious, is disappointing in many regards. Personally it did not seem as enjoyable as the first film, due to an absence of main characters and a story that has little to do with the first film.
The film does not pick up from the end of the previous film, rather following on from Turbo Charged Prelude, a short-film which hastily attempts to explain, in six minutes, how Brian O'Connor (Paul Walker), the main character, has made his way from Los Angeles in the first film, to Miami by the second. The film itself features Brian and his childhood friend Roman Pearce (Tyrese Gibson), who have been given the special task of going undercover to bring down a crime organisation.
This film shares very little in common with the first film, other than Brian himself, the name of the film, and sparse references to Dominic and his fleeing in the prior film. Perhaps it was the very absence of Dominic that had quite a bit to be considered; the first film leaves Brian and Dominic's relationship very much on a cliff-hanger, and those expecting to see expansion on their relationship in this film will be disappointed, as I was.
Building up on the absence of Dominic is the very absence of just about every character from the first film. Generally, a sequel should continue the events of the first, however this does not happen in any regard in this film.
However, when you push this aside, and ignore the fact that this is a sequel rather than a stand-alone, there are many positives. The clichéd troubled-relationship between Brian and Roman is refreshing, which allows for some classic bad-boy antics. A new host of characters also make their way into this film, including Eva Mendes as Agent Monica Fuentes, Ludicrous as Tej Parker and Devon Aoki as Suki.
Coal Hauser does a stunning job at playing the eccentric Carter Verone, a typical filthy-rich villain who is unpredictable, a man best to not mess with. However, James Remar does what I believe to be a poor job at playing Markham, the agent in charge of the operation to bring down Verone. Rather than be a man who is strict but doing what is right by his organisation, he instead comes across as an outright idiot. His lines are not only clearly scripted, but also poorly spoken, coming across as rash and downright rude. Whether or not this was intentional is not certain, but it certainly wasn't favourable.
Stunts in the film are quite good (the boat scene, anyone?) however many seem to be randomly placed. Sure, a race at the start to introduce us to the movie is clever, but it only introduces supporting roles, unlike the first film in which its debut scene has Dominic and Brian racing. Not long into the film is a very mismatched scene which sees Roman and Brian going against two of Verone's men; these are two men that have hardly been characterised. However, I cannot say this scene was a failure; it really does have you on the edge of your seat into even the last seconds.
There is a romance in this film, however it hardly lives up to that of the first film. The relationship between Monica and Brian remains at nothing but flirting. To be honest, I think the film would have been best without a romance; it's either a good romance, or none at all.
Having not watched any of the other sequels yet, it seems quite a miracle to me that Universal have created a franchise of to-be 10 films. The 1st was good enough for a sequel (although just one, not the eventual nine), yet the 2nd fails to meet this criteria, and it is remarkable that eight sequels have now either been made or are in production. Therefore I am under the presumption that the next few films must be quite outstanding.
On its own, this is a film that is entertaining enough, with stunts and a decent storyline that will keep audiences happy. However, as a sequel that hardly continues the first film, and does not live up to the reputation of the Fast and Furious series, this film is without a doubt a disappointment.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
On the whole a great film, well worth seeing if you've read the books
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a film that compliments the book series very well. The cast is well chosen, the story is brilliant, and it's a funny film that really brings out the best of Douglas Adams' famous series.
For the most part, if you've read the first book you'll be up to speed, though it's worth reading the rest.
The film features Arthur Dent, whose home is demolished one terrible morning, to make way for a road bypass. Only minutes later is planet Earth destroyed, to make way for a galactic bypass. And so begins a long story of whacky space adventures that take its characters on a journey literally out of this world.
There are four main characters that are the premise for this film. Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell) an egotistic two-headed President of the Galaxy, is on a quest to find the Ultimate Question. Ford Prefect (Mos Def), named after a car he almost got ran over by, is a friendly alien from a planet in the vicinity of Beetleguese. Tricia McMillan (Zooey Deschanel) is the love interest of the movie, a notable difference to the book that I will mention later. And of course, we cannot forget Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman), an ordinary man from England who has been thrust into the perils of his Galaxy.
While Marvin (Warwick Davis), the chronically depressed robot, is quite a major character, he doesn't see that much screen time.
The film paces itself really well, and I think the first scene prior to the destruction of Earth is very well made, setting the film up for a thrilling adventure. Interjections from none other than master narrator Stephen Fry help jog the story along, by adding little anecdotes of information from the novels. The cast is fairly well chosen, especially in Martin Freeman, who portrays the often-frustrated but overall-caring character of Arthur Dent so brilliantly. There doesn't seem to have been any purpose in Questular Rontok (Anna Chancellor), but each actor is almost a direct match to the characters in the novels. That is, except Trillian.
Trillian is overall a fairly minor character in the novels, however it was interestingly chosen to push her more into the limelight, giving her a presence in a love triangle between Arthur and Zaphod. It was clever to do this, but fans of the series may be disappointed to see a whole new story arc introduced purely for the purposes of romance (although I wasn't).
The story of the Vogans in the series feels wholly incomplete, so it seems wise that it was resolved in the movie. On the whole, the film intertwined plots from the novels ingeniously, adding what seems necessary here and there. It seems the ending on Magrathea was a little unusual, but on the whole it completes the movie decently enough.
This is a film that, to use Adams' quote, has made a lot of people very angry, and even been regarded as a bad move. Perhaps these people should take into account that many of the differences between the book and movie were written in by Douglas Adams himself, prior to his death. On the whole, it's mostly harmless, and certainly worth a watch. I certainly enjoyed it; it really compliments the novels very well.
Arthur Dent, and for that matter all the characters, are brilliantly acted out. The plot is to be commended for the most part, and the introduction of a romance that really supports Arthur as a character is on the whole satisfying.
If you've read the series you have to watch the movie. And if you haven't, it's still definitely worth a see.
Captain America: Civil War (2016)
Great film, well-rounded plot; confusing at times
Captain America: Civil War is the third and final film in the Captain America trilogy. But I don't think of it as the third film, rather the thirteenth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or MCU. This film has a rich plot which will leave viewers entertained and thrilled, alongside the further development of the main characters that have graced the screens since the start of the MCU, including the title-character Captain America, and impressive action scenes.
Yet this film struggles to keep Captain America in the limelight, with a plot those unfamiliar to the MCU will find confusing. Once you get into the film, although not as good as The Avengers films, this is a thriller and a must-see movie for 2016.
The basis behind the movie is simple; set one year after the horrible events in Avengers: Age of Ultron, the team must sign a UN treaty which effectively denies the Avengers any rights of free movement, stripping them of their ability to fight crime around the world and create a path of destruction along their way, as has happened in the other movies.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) or Iron Man, who has had to deal with the burden of having created Ultron in Avengers 2, decides it's best if the team signs this treaty. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), who is Captain America, disagrees and believes that signing the treaty is not the best thing for the Avengers.
This entire concept of two of the most powerful men in the Avengers team against each other forms the basis of the film; a Civil War, namely between the individual Avengers themselves. Perhaps a little conveniently, half the team sides with Stark, half with Rogers. And so begins the war, each side fighting for what they believe in.
What I liked about this Civil War idea was how it leaves the whole ''bad guys, good guys'' allocation to the audience for quite a portion of the film. We are aware that Tony Stark is a good guy, having seen the other MCU films, but so is Steve Rogers. Hence, while it soon becomes clear who is ''right'' and who isn't, having two ''good'' guys and two ''good'' sides opposing each other opens viewers up to a different kind of enemy, one of which is harder for viewers to pinpoint definitively.
However, in reality the entire basis of the film is not just the Civil War, but also encircles that of the Winter Soldier, James Barnes (Sebastian Stan), returning from Captain America: The Winter Soldier. He plays a pivotal role in the movie, the audience's perception of him being changed from Captain America 2.
Returning from Avengers: Age of Ultron are the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), alongside other characters from the MCU including Falcon, Ant-Man and War Machine. New appearances include the Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and Spider-Man (Tom Holland).
All these characters star in the fight scene, featured in the trailer, which is easily one of the best fight scenes in the MCU, almost outshining those in the Avengers, simply for its ever-so simple concept; a Civil War between the Avengers.
On the downside, it is this huge line-up of characters that forms part of the problem with this film. It drowns Captain America away as the title role in the film. He isn't completely submerged, with the film still able to identify him as the main protagonist. However additions such as Tony Stark have the inherent ability to dim away Steve's voice in the film. As the film progresses so too does Captain America's role diminish slightly. While fears of the film becoming Avengers 2.5 or Iron Man 4 before its release were thankfully not realised, this movie did still struggle to keep the limelight focused on Captain America himself.
More notably is how the film struggles to find focus. It shifts between the Civil War of sorts, and the underlying protagonists of the story, attempting to give each character some attention. This was to some degree a mistake; while this will entertain those who know the MCU universe well, those purely watching for Captain America will be confused for sure.
But I must digress; if you are going to see an MCU movie, any of them, it is best to at least know some basic background information about the timeline, to help your understanding of the film. This flaw of confusion is not intrinsic with this film but the fact that the MCU flows less like a collection of movies and more like a series, with each one flowing on to some degree from the last. Watching Captain America 2 then moving straight to 3 is not a smart choice, at the very least, watching Avengers 2 is necessary.
To an extent the movie struggles to find its voice for half the film, as the building blocks are slowly put down for the film. This can be good too, though, allowing for more character development. Unlike the Avengers films, this movie is not teeming with fight scene after fight scene. Rather they are more spaced, and rightly so; any more fight scenes and this movie would have been indistinguishable from any other Avengers film.
Having watched the other Avengers films, this movie doesn't quite live up to them, though it would be disappointing if this film outshone the Avengers. Instead, this film allows for an almost side-conflict set aside from the battles the Avengers are usually fighting together, instead exploring the consequences when a series of ''enhanced humans'' turn on each other.
Captain America: Civil War is a stunning film which has helped withhold the reputation of the MCU. It is a film that has been well-developed in almost every important aspect, and certainly has helped hook viewers and set up for a dramatic conclusion in Avengers 3: Infinity War.
Zootopia (2016)
A rare gem everyone can enjoy; not quite perfect, but enjoyable
Zootopia is one of the highest grossing animated films of 2016, and for the right reasons. It has unique characters, a clever plot which explores important themes, and stunning animation. It seems people are not seeing the movie for what it is; something that may not necessarily be suited for young children, with themes that should be portrayed in films for an older audience. Regardless, this is a terrific film that the entire family can enjoy, and deserves praise for this.
The film revolves around a young rabbit called Judy, who has from a young age aspired to be a police officer. And, from a young age, she has faced adversity in the form of racial prejudice; well, translated into the animal kingdom. This racial prejudice is the key theme of the film, explored through different species of animals rather than different races.
To Judy, living in the country on her parents' farm, Zootopia is a far-off city where ''anyone can be anything''. These dreams are completely dashed away when she is accepted into the Zootopia Police Force. Here, she faces discrimination from all corners, including mainly officers at the police department and her boss Chief Bogo, a mean, apathetic buffalo. This comes from the stereotype (another key theme of the film) that rabbits are ''dumb''.
Her dreams are almost shattered when Chief Bogo threatens to fire her (for a silly reason), giving her one chance to solve a missing animal case.
Teaming up with Nick, a fox con-artist, the pair begin an adventure that changes Zootopia and its prejudice forever.
The movie is to be applauded for the impressive way it explores discrimination. Never before has an animated film so stunningly explored these themes in a way that leaves viewers thinking about its meaning long after watching the movie. How it does this is simple; reiterating through Nick and Judy, both victims of prejudice, the harsh stereotypes that are employed by Zootopians. Through Judy, we are able to empathise with her as her experiences unfold. Through Nick, we are able to see how, bullied at a young age via stereotypical discrimination, his life was shaped.
In Zootopia, predators are the minority seen as dangerous. Clearly this fear is just another stereotype that is explored cleverly, attempting to show how fear based on stereotypes is commonly unsubstantiated.
The characters are unique in this film too. From Judy's protective parents who early on blatantly state how they are happy because they gave up on their dreams, to the resilient and studious Judy herself, Nick the seemingly sly con-artist who really represents far more, the Chief who is an obvious biased and the assistant mayor who is apparently under-appreciated by the mayor himself, although she ends up representing far more than just that.
Zootopia features amazing animation, which truly brings to life the characters. In a movie featuring animals this is a necessity and Zootopia definitely fulfills this criterion.
But every movie has its flaws. As great as Zootopia is, there are certain aspects that are underestimated in their influence. For example, the film is clearly scary at times. While not obvious at first, certain scenes featuring the ''savage'' animals have the potential to frighten the younger viewers. This is probably a little paranoid, but remembering that this is a kids movie it is important to note.
Even more noticeable is the plot. Sure, an adult could follow it with ease. But children are going to have difficulty understanding what is happening. Certain plot developments will not make sense; more so than other animated films because this is a detective story. Of course, for the most part children do not understand plots regardless of their complexity, and thankfully, while not teeming with it, the film does have humour that will entertain the kids.
Prejudice within the film is arguably its best feature. However, at the same time it has its flaws, namely that it is explored rather brutally; the Chief is quite rude to Judy, the Fox bully at the start is mean (''you think you will ever be more than just a stupid carrot-farming dumb bunny?''), and Nick's flashback is somewhat graphic. Although these are all eventually resolved, it seems its exploration was harsh.
You see, the truth of the matter is that Zootopia is a complex film. It explores themes that usually do not form a part of animated films, through a typical partner-cop detective story, with scenes that may appear in a horror movie filmed as live-action. To the most part it succeeds at exploring prejudice, however its detective story can be confusing at times, and as for the savage scenes, it's clear after a second look that they may appear frightening. Again, perhaps that's paranoid to think, but still.
Push this all aside, and Zootopia is a great film. The reason it has been received so well is because it is a film that both kids and adults can thoroughly enjoy, a rarer combination nowadays. It is to be praised for how well it handles prejudicial themes, stereotypes and discrimination, alongside its clever, witty characters that really allow viewers to connect, and quality animation which truly brings the film to life.
Zootopia is one of those rare gems that the entire family will be entertained by. Although it does have its flaws, it is definitely up there with the other high rating animated films, both commercially and critically.