43in2014

The short review: The Wicked story continues and incorporates the story arc from the original The Wizard of Oz. It drags, has much more singing of unfamiliar songs and has a story with unconvincing dynamics. Cons: #1: A con that is not apparent in Part 1 of Wicked is that when both parts are combined, they are nearly twice as long as the stage show. While Part 2 is much shorter than Part 1, Part 2 felt unnecessarily long because of the unconvincing story. #2: The singing scenes were bearable in Part 1 because the songs felt fresh and different. In Part 2, it felt like that I was watching a musical. Ahem... #3: The incorporation of the story arc of The Wizard of Oz here wasn't executed well. They should have made Dorothy a more significant character because they way they did it felt odd. They should also have spent more time on this incorporation, such as the entire Part 2. #4: (I am avoiding spoilers) The dynamics between the Wizard, Elphaba and Glinda, and between the latter two felt unconvincing. The same goes for how the Prince did what he did.

I have watched this and here are 10 reasons why it is bad!!! They are in the order these reasons/scenes appear on the screen. 1. Yelena (Florence Pugh) looks miserable here. It's not just her character is supposed to be miserable; it's like I can feel, in the first few minutes, that she is miserable because the script is terrible! 2. The script IS terrible! It's doesn't have interesting characters nor interesting events. The members of The Thunderbolts are supposed to be something special in future films. It doesn't look like it at all! 3. The pacing is life-draining. The film is 126 min long. I think I would cut half of that off! 4. The Red Guardian (David Harbour) is played as a lousy father figure and so-so superhero. Neither of which are convincing and this character has been a bore to watch. 5. Valentina (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) is one of the villains here and she has been a villain for several of these Marvel films already, but the character is terribly unconvincing. Why has Julia accepted these roles? This is a stain on her acting reputation! 6. At one point, Yelena is dispatched to a secret facility to destroy evidence, but a fight ensued there and it was unimaginative and dull! 7. One character is killed so flippantly, I was wondering if that person was supposed to come back sometime later! It's like Marvel doesn't care any more... 8. The story and characterisation of the other villain here is handled so boringly and unimaginatively, I was wondering which junior scriptwriters were hired to write this drivel. 9. The ultimate fight scene was uncharacteristic of a superhero film and terribly dull. It was like I was in the wrong film. 10. The moderately good reviews from critics and the public, and praise for Florence Pugh, had truly surprised me. None of them deserve any praise here. I had not seen The Marvels yet, another film reputed to be really terrible, but currently, this is the worst Marvel film for me. (Bonus) Mel (Geraldine Viswanathan) is another unconvincing character. In a good Marvel film, she would be killed off or would have needed to endure some ordeal. I guess no one had the imagination or ambition here.

I had watched the Chinese version, with English subtitles. Positives: 1. Beautiful scenes and animation. 2. There are some very funny scenes. Cons: 1. There is just too much fighting that it gets repetitive, basically more and more one-upmanship. As this is animation, and animators can make anything they can dream of, more does not equal better. 2. (Add on to Cons #1) Making the fight scenes larger, involving many, many more characters, and more epic does not make it better. 3. It's in Chinese, and particularly, rather fast-paced Chinese, so it is sometimes hard to read the subtitles too. 4. Some of the story and concepts would be hard to follow for a non-Chinese. Who would like this? Most Chinese, teenagers and young adults, and video gamers. Who would not like this? Those who dislike reading subtitles and the much older group.

The short review: Instead of continuing with the terrible prequel trilogy, this film goes back to the carnage of the Nostromo mining ship of the first film, to see if any more money can be squeezed out of the destroyed franchise. This is another reboot of the franchise, but one that breaks a fundamental rule in this and in MCU's franchise! It was interesting at the beginning, but then it became, in the end, what The Force Awakens was to A New Hope, a re-hash of an earlier film. Related media: I have seen almost all of the Alien movies. I refuse to see Alien: Covenant, after being burnt by Alien: Prometheus. Pros: It's more fun than the recent philosophical nonsense on the prequels. Cons: >1. The film makers revived things that should have stayed dead. By doing so, they are basically saying that what had happened in earlier films have no significance and earlier set rules can be broken. If so, the entire franchise has not significance too! >2. One thing not made clear in the first film of 1979 was how a rat-sized chestburster became a basketballer-sized monster in hours or a day. It breaks some of the fundamental laws of nutrient extraction, animal growth, mass conservation, etc. and no, the chestburster wasn't splurging on the food supplies on the ship. While this matter was ignored by film-goers in 1979 due to the terror occupying people's minds, this new film tries to explain it, which just made it less believable. >3. The rest of the film goes through the same trope as per previous films of the franchise, of the weaknesses of individuals ending up harming the entire group, whittling down the group until there are very few left. Predictable and boring. >4. Many practical side of things do not make sense. How can a small, privately-owned, space shuttle able to blast into outer space or get the permission to do so? Why is a giant and expensive space station allowed to just fall to its destruction without any attempt to save it with marines or engineers? How would the different age groups rate this: > Children: (Not rated for them) > Teens: Good > Young adults: Good > Medium-age adults: Average > Older adults: Average > My rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Save your money and watch it on TV.

The short review: Started off well, but then lost its creativity to result in a predictable sequel. Related media: I had seen the first film on TV, when I was young, and it was rather creative and macabre. Cons: 1. The film isn't special. You'd hope that a sequel would be better than the creative original, considering its director, but it had mostly treaded the same path. It lacks the peril of the original. 2. The special effects are not special. They are suspiciously CGI and lacking all the gore of the original. 3. I was always distracted by Ryder's character's gothic bangs. It looked gelled-up and like the gel was going drip down her face at any time! Her character's supposed to be in her 50's and she still a goth in her 50's? That's OK for the purpose of her show within the film, but not outside of that show! 4. Beetlejuice was not special here. It's a sequel, at least change up a few things! 5. The lip-synching part at the end was too long, not funny and not special. 6. I was always distracted by Theroux's character's ridiculous implant hairline. 7. Bellucci did the same thing for most of the film and she could not demonstrate her acting ability. Pro: I liked how they made fun of not having unfavoured actor Jeffrey Jones act in this film. Ratings of different age groups: Children: (Not rated for them) Teens: Poor Young Adults: Average Middle-age Adults: Average Older Adults: Poor My rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Save your money and watch it on TV.

The short review: Ryan Gosling's character plays a stuntman trying to rekindle his romance with Emily Blunt's character, the director of a movie production that has stunt work. The lead actor is missing and (Gosling) is tasked by the producer (Hannah Waddingham) to find him before the movie is shut down. However, the disappearance is proving to be complicated and lives could be at stake. The film is over-loaded with stunts, is inadequately directed and has caricature characters. > Related media: I had watched some of the original TV episodes when they first came out. Don’t remember much about the show but it was formulaic. In each episode, there’s some mystery to solve and there will always be one stunt at least, involving the pick-up truck doing a jump or a wheelie. The stunts were repetitive and the clips may have been recycled to save on costs.> Negatives: > 1. The film starts with the real-life director and Ryan Gosling joking about how stunt work is omnipresent in many films, yet is not rewarded with a category in the Academy Awards. While that is mildly funny, the film then degenerates into a bad example to argue their case with. There were too many unnecessary and over-long stunts. One particular flammable-fuel explosive scene was rather unrealistic as if the fuel was artificially placed there so there can be an explosion at that desired location. The problem is the mediocre script and the direction. In the past decade, the director has only been the full director for Bullet Train, Hobbs and Shaw, Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde, of which, I would only consider Deadpool 2 as a good film. Those four films are stunt-heavy and rather unnecessarily so. Before that, the director’s work had all been on stunt work, which explains a lot. >2. Continuing with the previous point, the stunts were also poorly/insufficiently edited. The stunts drag on for too long. Was the editor poor or was she given too much to edit but was instructed by the director she could not edit too much? The answer is evident in the director’s previous films, John Wick 4, where the action just goes on and on to a ridiculous length and ridiculous final result. There's even one scene where the editing looked choppy.> 3. Oh, what could have been! This could have been a nice romantic comedy that pays tribute to stunt work while still having a strong story. Instead, it became a series of stunt works strung together by the mystery and the romance. I guess that’s what the TV series was like too. >4. A final thing about the stuntmen - some of them act in this film and they really stand out as the villains, which shouldn't happen. >5. I am sure Waddingham was chewing the scenery every time, and poorly at that. Was she doing an Alan Rickman in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, because she’s a much better (stage) actor when compared to the poor directions she was given? >6. There is pathetic pair of cameos at the end. It totally did not make sense that these two turned up in Sydney, Australia as civilians there. > How would the different age groups rate this: > Children: Average (cannot follow)> Teens: Good > Young adults: Good (Ryan Gosling…)> Medium-age adults: Average > Older adults: Poor > My rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Save your money and watch it on TV.

The short review: The director seems to want to recreate the storyline, fantasy and mysticism of the Spirited Away (2001) film, but if you have seen that, this is unnecessary and also a poorer work. > Related media: I have seen, only on TV, some of the famous director's and studio's works. Most were very meaningful and wholesome. > Negatives: > 1. The vibe I get is that the director is trying to repeat the storyline, fantasy and the alternative world of the great Spirited Away (2001) film. It is not fresh here and it is not done better here. > 2. The abrupt and incomplete ending was unsatisfactory. >3. The film have a few duplicate events or unnecessary scenes that can be cut out to reduce the running time by some 20 min. > How would the different age groups rate this: > Children: Terrible (they won't understand it) > Teens: Terrible (slow and boring) > Young adults: OK (mildly interesting)> Medium-age adults: OK (mildly interesting) > Older adults: Poor (they don't get it). > My rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Save your money and watch it on TV.

The short review: This film attempts to create an atmosphere of suspense and fear of the unknown when all forms of communication are lost and the characters have to resort to old-fashioned face-to-face interactions, with the background sound playing a large part. It mostly succeeds.> Related media: I have not read the book of the same name this film is based on. Positives: > 1. It is mostly suspenseful and mostly engaging. > Negatives: > 1. The interactions between the African American family and the Caucasian family are unnecessarily awkward, and unrealistic as a result. > 2. Mahershala Ali's behaviour is also unnecessarily awkward and evasive, all for the purpose of slowly revealing information to the viewers, so as to keep up the suspense. > 3. The overall premise is, while interesting, rather contrived. Things are unlikely to turn out that way. 4. The film moves along unnecessarily slowly such that the running time can be cut by some 15 min. > How would the different age groups rate this: > Children: Poor (uninterested in subject matter) > Teens: Poor (slow and boring) > Young adults: Good (interesting)> Medium-age adults: Good (interesting) > Older adults: Excellent (just their type of film). > My rating: 4/5 (no half scores). Go watch it in the cinema (if you can find a cinema that shows it).

The short review: This film covers J Robert Oppenheimer's and Lewis Strauss's careers, using the former's 1954 hearing on the renewal of his nuclear security clearance and the latter's 1959 Senate confirmation hearing on his nomination as the Secretary of Commerce, to go into multiple flashbacks that covered the development of the A- and H-bombs, the communist witch-hunt and the latter's hate over the former. It is a good film with great acting, but it is hampered by Nolan-isms and excessive dialogue. > Related media: I have not read the book this film is based on called American Prometheus. > Negatives: > 1. The Nolan-isms present in Tenet are back! The two hearings mentioned above, being five years apart, are not covered chronologically. Then there are multiple flashbacks that are also not shown chronologically. Labels on the year of the event shown would have helped, but no... there is not a single one! Some scenes are shown in black and white to indicate they are close recreations of actual events, while the coloured scenes are dramatisations of other events. Smart-ass Nolan could have easily made this clear! > 2. While I understand that this is a drama, there is too much dialogue, particularly when this is 3 hrs long (including credits). While the dialogue is somewhat engaging, the dialogue can be cut down by some 30 min and some of this replaced with more interesting scenes. This will unfortunately raise the film's cost of $100m by a lot however. > 3. I had expected more coverage of the Manhattan Project work and did not expect than coverage of dialogue-heavy hearings. > Positives: > 1. It is a rather engaging film (engagement reduced due to length of film), with great acting from many. > 2. It is an amazing effort to make a epic film for only $100m nowadays, considering the long list of actors, many of whom are respectable. > How would the different age groups rate this: > Children: Average (overly long, dialogue-heavy and hard to follow) > Teens: Good > Young adults: Excellent > Medium-age adults: Excellent > Older adults: Excellent > My rating: 4/5 (no half scores). Go watch it in the cinema (because it is good and everyone is discussing it now; if the movie had come out at other times, you should only need to catch it on TV.)

The short review: Miles Morales watches the Spider-man of his universe try to stop Kingpin from running a particle collider. That Spider-man was able to damage the collider but not before it breaks down the boundary between universes - he's killed in the process. Miles has to learn to become the new Spider-man while Spider-people from other universes come over to stop Kingpin running the collider again. The storyline and animation is interesting and fresh at the beginning but gradually loses its shine. > Related media: I have watched all Marvel Cinematic Universe films with Spider-man featured. I have not read the comics or watched the TV shows. > Positives: > 1. The story is interesting and fresh, with new characters from other universes. > 2. The animation style is new (for me) and well done. Negatives: > 1. However, after a while, the animation loses its shine. Most characters are not drawn beautifully, particularly Kingpin. The 'glitch' caused by the multiverse affecting each other is also represented in a style that looks poor to me. > 2. The fast parts of some animations can be too much for some people, including myself. > 3. Towards the second half of the film, it just felt frustrating, tiring and not that impressive. > How would the different age groups rate this: > Children: Good > Teens: Excellent > Young adults: Excellent > Medium-age adults: Good > Older adults: Good. > My rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Save your money and watch it on TV.

The short review: Gwen/Spider-woman joins the Spider Society and travels the Spider Multiverse to neutralise villains. She meets up with Miles Morales on one mission, who followed her back to the Spider Society and is informed that he has to let controversial 'Canon Events' happens else the Multiverse will collapse. The film has a interesting story line and good animation, but some parts of the animation may be too fast for the eyes and some are too long. > Related media: I have watched all Marvel Cinematic Universe films with Spider-man featured and also the film preceding the current film. I have not read the comics or watched the TV shows. > Positives: > 1. The story remains interesting and fresh, as with the first film. > Negatives: > 1. The fast parts of some animations can be too much for some people, including myself. I had felt the same issue with the preceding film. > 2. I think there are 3 major fights in the film and all of them felt too long and repetitive. Coupled with them being fast animations, it was again, too much to take. > How would the different age groups rate this: > Children: Good > Teens: Excellent > Young adults: Excellent > Medium-age adults: Excellent > Older adults: Good. > My rating: 4/5 (no half scores). Definitely watch it in the cinema.

The short review: Barbie's world has turned upside down requiring her find out what's wrong by travelling to another world. It DEEPLY explores the concepts of death, patriarchy, feminism, dare-I-say-it wokeness, etc., concepts that SHOULD NOT be explored TO THAT EXTENT in what should obviously have been a family- and children-oriented film. It's terribly disappointing and dull, and it would confuse many demographics, particularly the children, who would not understand what they are watching. > Related media: I know very little of the Barbie universe. > Negatives: > 1. After the fun intro, it quickly degenerates into a disappointing and dull film, with only occasional fun bits. I had looked at my watch several times and had really wanted to leave after the third quarter. > 2. It was a strange decision to DEEPLY discuss the concepts of death, patriarchy, feminism, wokeness, etc. in what was supposed to be a family- and children-oriented film.. > 3. If you hate Hollywood shoving wokeness and feminism down your throat, you'll really hate this film! For me, it was more like, 'What the heck is this?!! I don't mind a film imparting wokeness and feminism to the viewer, but do it gradually and do it cleverly. For this film, it was utterly in-your-face and done much, much worse than in the poor Captain Marvel and any other similar terrible films since. > 4. Which demographics is this film targetting? Certainly not the children, who will have no idea what the film is about! They must have been bored when watching this. Teenagers and young adults would not be interested in the oft-repeated wokeness message while older adults had never understood the message in the first place. > 5. A few parts of the film appears to be designed for the stage (ala Broadway or West End) use and they really looked out of place in this film. Some films get away with this; this film just failed to do so. > 6. Female Mattel employee, Gloria, has a daughter who is quite relevant to the story. However, she frequently appears in the background, with nothing to do. This is a sign of bad directing and writing. > Positives: None. How would the different age groups rate this: > Children: Terrible (can't understand it at all and boring) > Teens: Poor > Young adults: Average > Medium-age adults: Average > Older adults: Poor. > My rating: 2/5 (no half scores). Don't even bother watching it on TV.

The short review: An physical key having two parts and capable of unlocking the ability of a world-changing AI system goes missing. Ethan Hunt has to find it amid the CIA's power play, multiple parties' double-crosses, new recruit, old agents, etc. It has a somewhat complicated plot, has great action scenes, has parts that are not quite believable and the film can be trimmed by some 15 min. > Related media: I have seen all other six M:I films. > Negatives: > 1. The plot is quite complicated and may need a second viewing for most. The box office of the first film of the franchise was not as good as was hope due to this reason. > 2. The film can be trimmed by some 15 min. This can be blamed on the complicated storyline and also by the director letting things run too long, especially the not particularly remember-able car chase scene in the middle. This issue was in the previous film too, also directed by the same person. > 3. Even by M:I standards, some action scenes are not quite believable. > Positives: > 1. The plot is better than that of the last film, M:I 6, which was unrealistic and predictable. > 2. Most parts of the final action scene are fresh and interesting. > How would the different age groups rate this: > Children: Not rated for children. > Teens: Excellent > Young adults: Excellent > Medium-age adults: Good. > Older adults: Average (cannot follow the plot). > My rating: 4/5 (no half scores). Go watch it in the cinema.

The short review: Two partners in thievery assemble more members for a heist to get back what is valuable to them in this middling sword and sandals pic. > Related media: I don't play D&D and I have not seen the reportedly terrible 2000's movie(s?). > Negatives: > 1. The unfortunate thing is that the film is so similar to what TV can produce nowadays - it is so middling and the first impressive scene only happens quite a while into the film. The final fight scene was also middling. I do wonder if the film could have made use of the gameplay of D&D to make this film distinct from all the swords and sandals pic around, but this franchise has already had flops in the 2000's so I think it was decided to be risk-adverse this time. Unfortunately, that is one wrong decision and the film is looking at a loss that will prevent future films being made. >2. There is quite a lot of D&D references about races, objects, places, etc. that without the subtitles and without a lot of giving it the benefit of doubt, I would have difficulty following. >3. Michelle Rodríguez always looks tired in this film. She was a downer that made the stories around her hard to believe. >4. Other parts of the film could have been emphasised more to highlight them, to make this film stand out amongst all the other similar films out there. These are all signs of poor directing and screenwriting. > How would the different age groups rate this: > Children: Average. > Teens: Average. > Young adults: Good. > Medium-age adults: Good. > Older adults: Average. > My rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Save your money and watch it on TV.

The short review: John gets more frustrated with the hits issued on his life and will try to end it once and for all, in an ultimate duel. > Related media: I have seen the three other films. Though I do not remember how I had rated them, all of them would have gotten at least a 4/5. > Positives: > 1. The film is beautifully shot, from great locations to great camera angles and placements. > 2. This is Part 4 and the storyline is still good. That's a rarity. Even the Toy Story franchise could not do well past Part 3. > Negatives: > 1. With 77, 128 and 94 kills in John Wick 1, 2 and 3 films (****), and even more in Part 4, it was and still is a bit ridiculous. It is impossible to have so many hitmen in each of the cities covered, in reality. (Two other groups are killing each other in this Part 4 and so more had died outside of John's hands.) 2. There was no accounting for the number of rounds of ammo John used. I had watched Mission Impossible 5 yesterday, I think the best of the series. There, the number of rounds were well accounted for and I like that realism and the need to switch to other solutions instead of continuously firing your fantasy pistol. 3. We should stop the stupid trope that a blind Donnie Yen can be that good at killing. It utterly unrealistic. 4. It's a fact that this film glorifies violence, no other way about it. 5. It is ridiculous that there had been that many killings in this series and there was no involvement of the police? 6. One cannot jump out of the third storey, fall horizontally onto a pickup, denting it significantly and then walk off as if you are still alive. > How would the different age groups rate this: > Children: Not rated for them. > Teens: Not rated for them. > Young adults: Excellent. > Medium-age adults: Good. > Older adults: Average. > My rating: 4/5 (no half scores). Worth to watch in a cinema.

The short review: With a great storyline, relatable human-like problems, new-ish animation graphics and numerous jokes, only del Torro's Pinocchio stands in this film's way of winning the best Oscar for animation. Related media: The four Shrek films and the first Puss in Boots film. I have seen all of them apart from the first Puss film. The worst of the four was Shrek 3. Positives: 1) This film has a great storyline with relatable human-like problems. The latter will appeal to people of all ages. 2) The film uses at least two animation styles, one of which is like that of Spider-man: Into the Spiderverse, but it is done better here. I don't think the style of the Shrek series is used here. Overall, it was refreshing to see a new style. 3) There are numerous good jokes in this film. How would the different age groups rate this: Children: They will want to watch it again and again. Teens: Excellent. Young adults: Excellent. Medium-age adults: Excellent. Older adults: Excellent. My rating: 5/5 (no half scores). Definitely watch it in the cinema.

The short review: Not as good as Knives Out (KO). Glass onion (GO) is dull and it lacks the twists and turns of KO. Netflix making me watch it on TV probably made it less good. Related media: KO. KO is a great mystery film. Negatives: 1) The story just isn't as good as KO. KO is twisting and turning all the way to the end, but GO seems to have only one major twist and it isn't that great. I was hoping for a counter-twist, but there isn't any. 2) Edward Norton is an irritating character and most of the others are not much better. Unlike KO, there is no true likeable characters to root for. 3) The mystery isn't great, the detective just solves the mystery without much surprise and the ending is uninspiring. How would the different age groups rate this: Children: They won't get it. Teens: Boring. Young adults: Meh. Medium-age adults: Meh. Older adults: Don't care about these people. My rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Save your money and watch it on TV.

The short review: This film lingers far too long on the grief following the death of King T'challa, giving it a far too slow a pace that drops the film from 'good' to 'middling'.

The short review: This has the best jet fighter action scenes in a film, EVER. The human drama part, however, falls a bit short. Related media: I have seen the original Top Gun film on TV numerous times. That film likely had the best jet fighter action scenes in a film back then too, and the human drama part also fell a bit short back then too. Positives: 1) All the jet fighter scenes are genuinely, top of the class! 2) The sound effects and the special effects are really top notch! 3) The excuse used to feature the F-14 fighter in the film in a major way, when no F-14 is allowed to fly anymore, in the military or by the public, is CLEVER. Negatives: 1) (This is hinted at in the trailer, so it’s not spoiler.) It has been some 35 years since the events in the original film. Surely the grief over the death of Goose should be over by now? This part is rather unrealistic. I know there’s more to it, but still… 2) The past relationship between Maverick and new flame was hinted at, but not covered much in this film. This coincided with a slow part of the film, thus making this part feel poor. 3) The original film had two great original songs. The songs in this film are not great. 4) (This is hinted at in the trailer, so it’s not a spoiler.) The top enemy fighter plane is obviously the Russian Su-57 (Felon), yet the film makes all attempts to call it the ‘fifth generation fighter’ rather than its real name, all the time, such that the film distributor can sell the film to the Russian market. That’s silly! Considering the banning of such sales following the Russo-Ukrainian war, that’s all for nought! Pilots would not use so many words to describe the fighter. As with the original Top Gun film, where the enemy fighter was given the fictitious name, Mig-28, here the fighter should also had been given a fictitious name, like ‘Firefox’. Children: Excellent. Teens: Excellent. Young adults: Excellent. Medium-age adults: Excellent Older adults: Good. My rating: 4/5 (no half scores). Definitely watch it in the cinema.

The short review: The film is too dark and depressing, has too many characters and a overly complex story. It was tiring to watch. Related media: This is a reimagining of the Batman story, so there is no relation to the earlier films. Synopsis: The story starts 2 years after Batman first appeared in the terribly corrupt and crime-ridden Gotham City. The Riddler starts killing and leaving riddles for Batman to solve, clues that reveal how corruption had permeated many institutions, including one that is close to the Batman. Positive: 1) It was a relief that it didn't **** after all the rumours about a difficult production and a difficult Robert Pattinson. 2)Zoe Kravitz portraying Catwoman is the best part of the film. Negatives: 1) The film was overly dark, lighting-wise and tone-wise. The Marvel Cinematic Universe films are so successful because you can see what is happening and they are also almost all fun to watch. I know this is a film about the Dark Knight, but you need to contrast the dark parts with the brighter parts to make the dark parts stand out more. Otherwise, the viewers are just going to be drained at the end of the film. The director may have this intention, but I had felt drained and frustrated. 2) At nearly 3 hrs long (including credits), the film is 1 hour too long. I had looked at my watch far too many times during the film, indicating that I was bored. The story is too complex, there are too many characters to follow and there are too many things happening. There is also one dead villain being repeatedly mentioned but there were no photo or video of him thus making it hard to follow the story. 3) Robert Pattinson gets to act out his emo goth but I did not enjoy watching him. This film has turned me off watching his other films because I think many of them have him acting out in the same way too. How would the different age groups rate this: Children: (not rated for children). Teens: Good. Young adults: Excellent. Medium-age adults: Average. Old adults: Poor My rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Only worth to catch it on TV.

The short review: Teens and fans would absolutely love this film! However, I think it is merely good and also rather frustrating. Related media: I have seen all of the MCU films apart from Eternals, which I’ll watch on TV instead. Shang-Chi was great in the first half and only OK in the final quarter. What's it like? With Peter Parker’s alter ego exposed in the previous film, he goes to ask Dr Strange to cast a spell for the world to forget he’s Spider-man, only to ask for more and more exceptions mid-spell-casting, thus screwing up the spell. A frustrated Dr Strange attempted to fix this spell only for Peter to interfere again, thus creating an even bigger mess. Mid- or post-credit scenes: One mid- and one almost trailer-length post-credit scene. Positive: 1) With villains of other Spider-verses coming into this universe - it’s in the trailers - I had expected the obvious things to happen, but it wasn’t that straightforward, so kudos to the writers. 2) There are some very funny jokes between characters of different Spider-versus, some of which are real-life jokes about the actors themselves. Negatives: 1) In the first MCU Spider-man film, Peter Parker messed up while trying to catch the villains, thus leading to a ferry being split in half. In the second film, he messed up by giving the special glasses to the villain, thus leading to the destruction in London. In this third film, he messed up again. This trope/storyline is just far too repetitive, as if there would be no other plotline that does not involve Peter messing up. I understand that Peter is a kid growing up, but is any kid going to mess up in three big ways in their teens? 2) Teens and fans would absolutely love this film, because of the appearance of the characters from other Spider-verses, but the directing of a few of these critical characters was poor, thus leading over-emotional and slow performances. Some 15 min could be chopped off from this film. 3) The final battle was very confusing because there were too many characters and director did not do a good job. 4) The mess created by Peter Parker was not satisfactorily resolved and leaves much to be desired, but I do not think this would form any part of the sequels to this – yes there will be more MCU Spider-man films! How would the different age groups rate this: Children: (not rated for children). Teens: Excellent. Young adults: Excellent. Medium-age adults: Good. Old adults: Average. This may just be too confusing/frustrating for them. My rating: 4/5 (no half scores). Worth it to watch it in the cinema.

The short review: First half great, final quarter ends up being the cliche Chinese mythological story-line that non-Chinese writers often write, but both writers are actually half-Asians! Shame! Shame! Shame! Related media: I have seen all of the MCU films. The previous film, Black Widow, was disappointing throughout the film. What's it like? The son of an immortal warlord escapes from his father to live in San Fran, but is then forced to go back to help his father to open a gate that supposedly holds captive the son's mother, who was supposed to have died over a decade ago. Mid- or post-credit scenes: One mid- and one post-credit scene. Positives: 1) There are many, many good physical fight scenes in the first half of this film. 2) As with other MCU films, there are a lot of effective funny jokes here, thus making this a fun film. (Black Widow was not a fun film.) Negatives: 1) A cliche creature of Chinese mythology appeared in the final quarter that should not have been included in an MCU film, as MCU films have always been leaning towards science rather than mythology (apart from those concerning Thor, but these have been canon in the comics for a long time). The appearance of the creature and/or how it was portrayed just dumb down what could have been a good film. 2) The good physical fight scenes in the first half of the film completely disappear in the second half to be replaced with nonsense and CGI fight scenes. 3) No explanation was provided on how The Mandarin and his goons successfully navigated the enchanted forest to find the secret village. They should not have been successful. 4) The Mandarin's existence does not make sense. His base in a very mountainous region, and the presence of cars and roads leading to his base, does not make sense. Why is there no film on The Mandarin? How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Not rated for children. Teens: Good. Young adults: Good. Medium age adults: Good. Old adults: Average. My rating: 4/5 (no half scores). Worth it to watch it in the cinema.

The short review: Unlike many critics' opinions, I think this is the second best Craig's Bond films; it's better than Skyfall. Related media: I have seen all of the official Bond films. The previous film, Spectre, was disappointing. What's it like? Bond has quit MI6 and wants to spend his time with his love, Madeline, but her secrets come back to haunt both of them, turning into a big problem and causing many casualties. Positives: 1) There are many, many good action scenes in this film and you are really getting your money's worth here. Considering that it costs $250m, which is less than the lousy Spectre's $300m and just slightly more than the other lousy Quantum of Solace's $230m, this is money very well spent. 2) The story is rather good. Do not buy into the negative and sexist criticisms of the story-writing. Bond has been evolving since Craig's first film, even being very different in Casino Royale to pre-Craig Bond films. I don't think the majority would want to watch a womanising, woman-slapping and frivolous woman-killing spy in the 21st century. Negatives: 1) The ending really creates a big problem for the future. It's like Marvel killing off half of the superheroes and then needing to use time-travel to fix it later on. 2) The ending is rather unlike past Bonds, who can find a solution where there is obviously none. 3) Many of the physics in the film are just plain wrong. Bombs exploding close to you will kill you due to the blast pressure, or at least permanently deafen you, a high-speed glider transitioning from air to water would break apart in the water, missiles can be disabled mid-flight and nano-bots able to selectively kill are two aspects that are like the hated invisible car of Tomorrow Never Dies. How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Not rated for children. Teens: Good - they would not appreciate it as much. Young adults: Good. Medium age adults: Excellent - this is a film for this age group. Old adults: Good only, because they would still prefer the old Bond. My rating: 4/5 (no half scores). Worth it to watch it in the cinema.

The short review: It has some fresh insights, is funny at places, but is inconsequential to the MCU. Better than Captain Marvel though! Related media: I am reviewing this film after having seen all previous MCU films. What's it like?: This tells the story of Black Widow after the events of Captain America: Civil War (CA:CW). She is now wanted by Secretary Ross, and ended up meeting up with her original 'family'. Mid- or post-credit scenes: One post-credit scene. Positive: It's better than Captain Marvel...? Negatives: 1. This film's storyline is mostly inconsequential to what happens after CA:CW. 2. The villains' HQ is ridiculous and unrealistic physics-wise. 3. The arch villain is of the MCU-cliched throw-away kind. How would the different age groups rate it? Children:Poor; Teens:Poor; Young adults:Average; Medium-age adults:Average; Old adults:Poor. Rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Skip it. Save your money and watch it on TV.

The short review: A good, not great, horror/thriller that did not fully succeed due to the lack of plausibility (for me). Related media: There's no related media to this film (but I have seen the excellent Get Out). What's it like?: The film asks what would happen if there is doppelganger out there for each of us that wants to kill us to take over our lives. Positives: 1) As with Get Out, this film is an edge-fo-the-seat horror/thriller that has an interesting plot. 2)The twist at the end is good stuff. Negatives: 1) However, the twist at the end does not match up with how Lupita's character had been behaving for some parts of the story. A main question is, why did she have a holiday home, or allow her husband to buy a holiday home in Santa Cruz, considering what she knows, and I am referring to the twist? 2) Several questions on the creation of the clones, such as who, why and how, need to be explained to make the plot plausible. 3) More questions on why the clones are so murderous, how did they know where to find their doppelgangers (the 'real' people), as well as what they are doing at the end of the film needs answering. How would the different age groups rate it? Children: (Not rated for kids) Teens: Excellent Young adults: Excellent Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Good Rating: 4/5 (no half scores). It is worth it to watch it in the cinema.

The short review: A funny superhero origin story that gradually loses its shine due to lack of seriousness and later becomes something akin to a Power Rangers film. The kids would love it! Related media: I have not read the comics on this hero nor watched cartoons based on this character. What's it like?: This film has elements of past films where teenagers are suddenly given powers (for example Spider-man's story), Big (1988) and films on Power Rangers. Mid- or post-credit scenes: There's one in the middle and one at the end (that has a great punchline). Positives: 1) The film is funny in many places, though this becomes less frequent over time. 2) The caring nature of the foster home's parents is an inspiration to all. If only all foster homes are like that! Negatives: 1) The film lacks sharpness. There are many instances where Shazam! could have been killed off, but wasn't, simply because this is a children film. Relatedly, the villain is not clinical enough and seems to do the cliche over-confident villain thing of taking his sweet time to kill off our hero. Boohoo! 2) The 'S' in Shazam! is referring to the wisdom of Solomon. Despite being given the powers of Shazam!, this hero did not get all that wise! He remained a dumb kid, doing dumb things in dumb ways. Sure, there were instances where he had showed wisdom, but they were not beyond the level of an adult nor at the level of a superhero. 3) The film's running time could have been compressed by some 30 minutes. A few tropes are repeatedly shown and everything just moves somewhat slowly, as if the film is meant for kids. 4)Shazam! foster brother, Freddy, is a rather irritating character. 5) Late on, the story degenerates into a Power Rangers trope, which is both interesting and disappointing. If the film had been more clinical, then this would not have been necessary. How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Excellent Teens: Good Young adults: Good Medium age adults: Average Old adults: Average Rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Skip it. Save your money and watch it on TV.

The short review: The story and action scenes are both inadequate, and the film tries to be sentimental but moves too slowly and it all turns out very disappointing. This will be the first MCU film to get a fail score from me. I think Kevin Feige has dropped the ball ala Kathleen Kennedy doing the same with Star Wars VIII and Solo. Related media: I have seen all of the MCU films but have not read the comics. The recent one, Ant-Man and the Wasp was also disappointing. I hope this is not a trend. What's it like?: It tells the origin story of Captain Marvel and how she met Nick Fury, but in a confusing way as it is the main plot point. Negatives: 1) The story is rather inadequate and is told in a sentimental and very slow way. There’s not much story at all due to the numerous flashbacks, and the story is not all that interesting anyway. 2) The action scenes are very limited and unimpressive. Check out the budget for the film and you will understand why. The fight and flight scenes are not special and are physically inaccurate as well. 3) How Nick Fury lost his eye is explained but the story is ridiculous and unimpressive. How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Average Teens: Poor Young adults: Poor Medium age adults: Poor Old adults: Poor Rating: 2/5 (no half scores). Skip it. Don’t even bother watching it on the TV.

The short review: The film is good, not great. Without the Han Solo brand, it would not really stand out. A non-Star Wars fan would probably think it's only so-so. Related media: I have seen all of the Star Wars films, but chose to sit The Last Jedi out and save my money. I had a bad feeling about it… after watching The Force Awakens. What's it like?: It tells the story of Han, from his tough youth at Corellia, shipyard of the Empire’s fleet, to when he wins the Millennium Falcon from Lando (not a spoiler). New events and characters were added to his canon and one detail appears to be there just for Disney to spin-off a character to another film, say Solo 2? Overall, the film didn’t feel special – there were not much tension or surprises, and the soldiers/guards still can’t shoot! Positives: 1) Lando is flamboyant and L3, the robot, is funny and interesting as a robot-suffragist. Negatives: 1) The story is not surprising or special and it lacks that Star Wars essence. Without the Han Solo brand, it would not really stand out. Rogue One felt similar for most of the film, but it did have the epic space battle at the end to sum it all up. 2) The film seems to be written just to explain why the Kessel run happened. The part of the story near the ‘run’ felt contrived and it had a few lazy Star Wars myths thrown in there. 3) The film also explains how Han gets his name, how he meets Chewie, why he's called Chewie and why Han shoots first, mostly in the most conventional and uninspiring of ways. That's the director's fault. How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Good Teens: Good Young adults: Good Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Average Rating: 4/5 (no half scores). Pay to watch it in the cinema.

The short review: This is as good/great as the first film and I have not even seen the first film! Related media: The first film was banned from the cinemas and TV in my country and I still don’t know which scene(s) had caused this. Ha ha! I have also not read any Deadpool comics before, but I have seen all the clips you can get on Youtube. What's it like? A major character dies at the beginning and Deadpool is depressed. He tries to prevent a young mutant from doing the wrong thing, but is instead imprisoned with the mutant in a place where mutant powers are neutralised. Then Cable shows up to kill the mutant. It has a lot of silliness, jokes, violence, and breaking-the-fourth-wall conversations, yet there is a good lesson in it. Mid- and post-credit scenes: There is one GREAT mid-credit multi-scene and no post-credit scene. Positives: 1) This film is filled with jokes, silliness, and breaking-the-fourth-wall conversations. 2) At the core of the film is a message about the mutants vs humans fight that the X-men films had been trying to impart onto us, and it is great that of all X-men characters, it is the irreverent Deadpool that imparts this message best of all. 3) The cameos are very unexpected but are very funny. The cameos in the mid-credit multi-scene, including that of a character that is already dead in another film universe, raises the bar to another level of silliness. 4) Deadpool recruits several new mutants to his team here, they makes the film interesting. What happened to these mutants is very funny and Domino, a mutant with the power of luck, was a standout character. 5) The apt use of some 80's music also much appreciated. Negatives: Some say that this film is not a fresh as the first film. As I had missed out on the first film, it didn’t bother me. How would the different age groups rate it? Children: You need to grow up by some ten years first… but it’ll still be too adult for you! No Deadpool 2 for you!; Teens: Are you going to be accompanied by your parents to this film? Then it will be an ‘Excellent’; Young adults: Excellent; Medium age adults: Excellent; Old adults: The film is too adult of ‘Old adults’. They would only give it a ‘Good’; Rating: 5/5 (no half scores). Pay to watch it in the cinema and then buy the DVD.

The short review: The character and story development are inadequate, many fights scenes felt like nothing new, and the plot felt predictable, but there is enough comedy, anticipation and suspense to make this a good but not great film. Related media: I have seen all the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films, so this review is based on knowing what had happened before. What's it like?: Something happened before the film starts that makes Thanos and his henchmen decides it is finally time to take matters into their own hands to assemble the Infinity Stones themselves. So they move from one location to the next, fighting and killing the current holders of the stones. Will he succeed? Post-credit scene: One at the very end but it’s a must-see. Negatives: 1) A major irritation with this film is the slow pacing, sometimes caused by too much pondering and exposition. Thanos’s destruction of one character/location after another has made the mood gloomy, but when the story transitions to another location, it takes too long for the next thing to happen. 2) The film suffers from what critics have been warning for a long time – too many major characters in one film. Marvel was able to avoid the failures of DC Comics with Suicide Squad and Justice League, and in fact had major successes with Avengers 1 and 2 and Captain America: Civil War, but I think Marvel has reached a tipping point with this film. With so many characters, they could not spend more time with each character and cover character developments other than moving from one fight to the next. 3) (Cont’d) An example of this is the fight between Iron Man and a villain. It degenerates into the usual thing of Iron Man shooting lasers and missiles, while being thrown about and smacked with objects. There is nothing new! It becomes another throwaway skirmish, of which there are many in this film. 4) A real problem with any story where the villain is trying to gather a number of powerful objects, which upon completion would render him/her invincible is, where the story goes from there onwards. This problem is made worse here as Thanos becomes more powerful as he acquires each Infinity Stone, rather than needing to collect them all before getting any power from each stone. This principle makes it ever easier for him to acquire each succeeding stone, such that it is guaranteed that he would complete his task. I am really worried as to how the story writers are going to fix this in Avengers 4. 5) There are some opportunities to stop Thanos somewhere in the film but they are wasted because of the stupidity and selfishness of some characters. Some character(s) even surrendered the stones. I think these situations were there just to milk out some drama but they were not well done. 6) The massive attack on Wakanda with Thanos’s army – it’s in the trailer – does not make sense, considering that prior attempts to acquire the stones had only involved a few super-villains but were executed very expertly. It smacks of a cheap attempt to insert a major battle into the film just to satisfy the fans, when it wasn’t necessary at all. 7) The scenes where the heroes who do not know each other meet up for the first time, was not done well. It seemed like the heroes trusted the other side and become friends too easily. 8) Thor and Peter Quill had developed greater powers in recent films, but neither of them used these powers here. Disappointing. 9) Thor remains insecure about not having a hammer and goes to get a new one. The entire sub-plot on this venture felt contrived and felt like an attempt to show a MacGuffin. 10) The strange ending was another gloomy scene. The audiences in the same theatre as me, felt drained, depressed and confused when the lights were turned on. Hang on! This could be just what the directors intended, which would make this a positive! 11) Overall, the story felt predictable and this points to the linear and average story-writing. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 felt the same, but Thor and Civil War were surprising. Positives: 1) Despite this film being rather gloomy, there were still many funny moments, something that almost all of the DC Comics films never managed. 2) The film did try to cover the backstory of Thanos, which I wasn’t expecting. Film critics cannot thus argue that this film did not have any character development. 3) The beginning of the film had some of our heroes losing continuously and badly to Thanos and his henchmen. When our heroes won decisively for the first time, it felt really great! How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Excellent; Teens: Excellent; Young adults: Good; Medium age adults: Good; Old adults: Average; Rating: 4/5 (no half scores). Pay to watch it in the cinema.

The short review: This is a must-see super tense thriller that has great sound effects and sound editing, and great acting all around. There are a couple of plot holes, but the good parts cover these up. Related media: There isn't any related book / TV series. What's it like?: The inspiration for this film could be The Diary of Anne Frank. Other recent similar works including 2015’s Hidden. In this film, the alien hunters are highly perceptive of unnatural sounds (but cannot see well?!). The family of five hides in a farm and go about daily activities very quietly, but a series of events eventually draw the aliens to the farm for a final showdown. Pros: 1) Sci-fi films need rules on what is feasible and what is not. This film stick to these rules consistently and the film thus works very well. 2) The sound effects and sound editing were done very well here. The sound comes on and goes silent at different times. It also portrays the difficulty deaf people have with their hearing devices. It is very quiet for most of the film and my fellow cinema-goers were actually very careful not to fiddle with their food packaging then, which is quite an achievement for a film. 3) Needless to say, this film is a super-tense thriller. Impending dangers are given time to build up thus making the experience for the viewers very tense. The last film I saw that was similarly tense was 2017’s Get Out and that was excellent too. 4) Emily Blunt's acting is good enough to win an Academy Award. No holocaust film required! Cons: 1) Sight is the most important sense for any species and is required for that species to dominate all others. It is unlikely that an alien species able to build spaceships to come to Earth have such poor eyesight. A caveat of this is that the aliens could merely be creatures dropped off from space by their more sense-able masters. 2) Even if the hunters could not see (well?) it doesn’t make sense for the family to highlight the farm that they live at by turning on all the lights at night and farming their corn in such neat rows. The aliens could have some spaceship or drones with sensors that can see such things. 3) No explanation was provided for why the farm had a steady supply of electricity. Most part of the film takes place more than a year after the aliens appear. Is the National Grid still operational or does the farm have a generator, which would be noisy though? 4) It is not possible to physically upturn a nail in the way shown in the film, but a greater issue here is that the film fails to incorporate this nail into the story, towards the end of the film. 5) Why would the father set up operational microphones and speakers at home when this could accidentally create unwanted sounds? How would the different age groups rate it? Children: (This is too tense for children.) Teens: Excellent Young adults: Excellent Medium age adults: Excellent Old adults: Excellent Rating: 5/5 (no half scores). Pay to watch it in the cinema and to buy the DVD.

The short review: A good film about teenagers fending off bad adults, while immersed in a digital game world, that was unfortunately let down by inadequate background story and Spielberg's frustrating view of what a teenager film should not have. Related media: I have not read the novel of the same name. What's it like?: It's like Tron and Tron:Legacy, about a person entering the virtual world to complete a task while being pursued by the villains. There are numerous pop culture reference to the 80's and a numerous game characters from the 80's to the present. Pros: 1) There are a numerous pop culture references to the 80's from gaming, music, films and fashion. Their inclusion is fun and funny, particularly that regarding The Shining. 2) Many of the game characters from the 80's to the present make an appearance in the film as game avatars. This was fun... until it became too much. 3) The film provides many insights into the world of gaming, past and future. It shares with the audience what makes gaming fun and meaningful. Cons: 1) There is insufficient development in the background stories around the real world part of the film and on the characters in the film. No explanation was provided on how the dystopian world came to be and what the people in the real world do when they are not involved in VR gaming. Our hero does not seem to go to school, work, eat, drink, or go to the toilet at all, for the entire duration of the film! 2) Spielberg has some frustrating styles and views when it comes to true children films. He doesn't allow certain things in his film - he digitally removed firearms from ET, 25 years after it came out. In Ready Player One, some characters die in the novel and one is a lesbians, neither of which happened in the film. Many of his adult characters in his films are also one-dimensional and it is often a case of smart children versus the evil/misunderstanding/uncaring villains/parents/police. While this film is more for teenagers, these criticisms are still somewhat true. 3) The scenes where the teenagers first meet up in the real world were very poorly acted. I was very much enjoying the film until these parts. How would the the different age groups rate it? Children: Excellent Teens: Excellent Young adults: Excellent Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Average Rating: 4/5 (no half scores). It's worthwhile to pay to watch it in the cinema.

The short review: An action comedy with lots of laughs and twists, but with a not entirely realistic plot. Related media: There are no related films or books. What's it like?: Jason Bateman's and Rachel McAdams's husband and wife characters love game nights (involving board games), hosts them and are very competitive at them. Bateman's character's brother (Kyle Chandler) return from overseas, hosts one game night where he raises the bar by including a pretend-kidnapping-find-the-clues game. However, things soon get out of hand and it becomes unclear which is reality and which is pretend. A comedy. Pros: 1) There are many funny and silly moments that made my laugh out loud. 2) The film is rather surprising and unpredictable. 3) There is great chemistry between Bateman and McAdams and between the two other couples. Cons: 1) There is quite a bit of gun violence and blood that made some moments too tense. It is an R-rated film though. 2) The film has a plot that strings together a series of events which are unlikely to follow one another, so that's not very plausible then. How would the the different age groups rate it? Children: (This is an R-rated film) Teens: Good Young adults: Good Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Average Rating: 4/5 (no half scores). It's worthwhile to pay to watch it in the cinema.

The short review: A good Marvel film that has unfortunately been hyped up to ‘great’ status, which it isn’t. Related media: I’ve seen all of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s films but I’ve not read the comics on Black Panther. What's it like?: The Black Panther/T’Chala returns to Wakanda following the events in Captain America: Civil War to fight against any challengers to the throne. He wins the fight, but another challenger appears later on who is much tougher to beat. Pro: The ensemble of mainly black actors in such an important, expensive film is revolutionary for the community of black actors, especially since the film is made and acted well and is expected to be a major success. Cons: 1) There are so many issues with the portrayal of Wakanda, with regards to its economy, its ultra-high technology, the relationships between the tribes, the wonders of Vibranium, etc. The portrayal is too fantastical and not realistic, and I felt that the filmmakers had not put in the effort, such as engaging engineers, economists and sociologists to try to make it at least, plausible. In making the portrayal so fantastical, they had dumbed down the film and hope the viewers are too dumb to know the difference. 2) Wakanda has been depicted as being so advanced that they even have body armour technology that is more advanced than Tony Stark’s. How realistic is it that you can keep all the technological advances a secret? Tony’s secrets are safe because only he knows them. Wakanda seems to rely on tribal trusts and those things are hardly reliable. 3) The scene where others challenge T’Chala to the throne did not seem realistic from an hydro-engineering point of view and the CGI also looked a bit poor and unrealistic. The filmmakers should have done it in a simpler and more realistic manner. 4) The depiction of the use of Vibranium tech for shielding, by a non-ruling tribe in Wakanda, felt again, unrealistic and poorly thought out by the filmmakers. 5) The scene showing the attempt to stop Wakanda tech from being taken out of the capital city, the one involving planes, felt simplistic, child-like and lazy. 6) The running time could be squeezed down by some 15 minutes by speeding things up. 7) A continuity issue has appeared as it is now uncertain when Captain America’s visit to Wakanda was supposed to take place! Post credit scenes; There are two. The first references the current political situation in the US. How would the different age groups rate it? Children: (not rated for children) Teens: Good Young adults: Excellent Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Good Rating: 4/5 (no half scores). It's worthwhile to pay to watch it in the cinema.

The short review: This is a film that's targetted more at children and has many funny parts. It peaks around the middle and then loses some of both the momentum and the plot towards the end. Related media: I have seen the first film on TV, about ten years after it first came out. The plot device was ridiculous but the film was meaningful and interesting. I think Zathura was an unrelated sequel. What's it like?: Four people get **** into a video game version of Jumanji, a board game, and they have to work together to complete the game before they use up all their lives so that they can return back to the real world. Pros: When these four people were first **** into the game and they first discover their characters in the game, it was really funny. There a many other funny instances in the film too. Cons: 1) Other than these funny instances, some of both the momentum and the plot are lost towards the end. 2) The plot of the game, not the film, is that the villain goes into the jungle of Jumanji to find a green jewel that is embedded into the eye **** jaguar statue. He gets hold of the jewel and is now empowered with the ability to control the jaguars in the jungle. He now plans to use his goons to take control of the surrounding territory. However, the jewel is stolen from him and handed over to these four people so that it can be returned to the jaguar statue. Even so, the villain was still capable of controlling the jaguars after losing the jewel, which doesn't make sense. 3) The flow of the film and thus the game felt linear, and that's never a sign **** game. How would the the different age groups rate it? Children: Good Teens: Good Young adults: Good Medium age adults: Average Old adults: Average Rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Save your money and watch it on TV.

The short review: A feel-good film that appeals to people of all ages. It could have been 'great' but it was merely 'good' due to two unrealistic scenes in the end that let it down for me. Related media: I have not read any of the children books, but I have seen the first film. I had only given it a 3/5. Please check out my review of it. What's it like?: Paddington the bear finds a wonderful pop-up book in a shop and he wants to earn the money to buy it and then send it to his aunt, but the villain wants the book too! Pros: 1) The first film appealed more to children, while this film has better acting and a more realistic plot and it has a broader appeal. Adults would enjoy this more than the first film. 2) Hugh Grant had a great opportunity to display his diverse acting skills as the villain here and he did not disappoint. Cons: Everything was going well and I would have awarded the film 5/5, and then it had to show two highly unrealistic scenes towards the end! How would the the different age groups rate it? Children: Excellent Teens: Excellent Young adults: Good Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Good Rating: 4/5 (no half scores). It's worthwhile to pay to watch it in the cinema.

The short review: Starting wonderfully with surprising cameos, links to other Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) characters, and a great Infinity Stone-esque reveal, the film peaked at the Thor vs Hulk fight (not a spoiler) in the middle and did not rise any higher in the final act. Related media: I have seen all of the MCU films, but felt that the Thor films were never great. Thor was 3/5 and Thor 2 was 4/5. What's it like?: Packed with surprising things, was very funny, but the final act was sort of OK, not great. Pros: 1) The best part of the film was the Thor vs Hulk fight, particularly the part where Thor has to rediscover himself. 2) The film is super funny. 3) The film started well with surprising cameos, links to other MCU characters and a great Infinity Stones-esque reveal. Cons: 1) The final act wasn’t as sharp, doesn’t completely make sense and wasn’t as funny. This seems to be typical of Thor films where the directors run out of ideas at some point in the films. 2) Karl Urban’s character, Skurge, was poorly written and poorly acted. How would the the different age groups rate it? Children: (not rated for children) Teens: Average: Excellent Young adults: Excellent Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Good Rating: 4/5 (no half scores). It's worthwhile to pay to watch it in the cinema.

The short review: This sci-fi, action thriller is a great film, visually, sound-wise, story-wise and acting-wise. Think Dunkirk (2017) but with a great story. > Related media: It is a sequel to 1982's Blade Runner, which was itself based on the novel 'Do androids dream of electric sheep?'. That original film has a novel based on it and three other sequel novels. I have not seen nor read any of them, but I have heard a lot about the film and I know its story, generally. > What's it like?: It borrows the dystopian style of the original film and tells the story of a new LAPD blade runner (officer tasked with killing rogue replicants) named K, who is himself, a replicant (artificially-built humans). His job and investigation leads him to discover more about himself and about a major secret about the replicants. > Pros: > 1) It has great visual- and audio-styles and great visual- and audio-effects. I look forward to it winning many major awards. > 2) The story, script and acting are also great and there are some awards possible there too. This film is directed by Denis Villeneuve not Ridley Scott, and considering the latter's recent films, that's a good thing. > 3) The film presents many interesting futuristic things. > Cons: > 1. It may be able to lose some 15 minutes by speeding up some parts slowed down unnecessarily for artistic reasons. > How would the the different age groups rate it? Children: (not rated for children) Teens: Average (It's probably a bit too complex and slow for the general teen.) Young adults: Excellent Medium age adults: Excellent Old adults: Good > Rating: 5/5 (no half scores). Pay to watch it in the cinema and then buy the DVD.

The short review: A film that is synced to the song that's playing at the time. It's very loud, violent and smart, but it slightly loses its way towards the end when the characters need to face up to their bad deeds. > Related media: It's an original story with no related media. > What's it like?: Baby is an expert getaway driver of several robbers hired and led by a character played by Kevin Spacey. Due to tinitus, Baby listens to songs all the time and he sync his actions around each song. Baby is only interested in paying off his debt to 'Spacey' and then quitting. He is not interested in the robbery nor the money, but 'Spacey' would not let him quit. He threatens the people that Baby loves to force him to continue. It all comes down to the last job, where things do not go according to plan. > Pros: > 1) The concept of syncing the action to the song played at the time is fresh and interesting. > 2) The film is smart in many ways. For example, the characters all use pseudonyms to hide their real identities. Their real names were later revealed in due time and in interesting ways that brings up their backgound, hence character development. Other examples include the escape plan and its execution, and what happens when things don't go according to plan. > Cons: > 1) The volume is rather loud. > 2) Unfortunately, I am not familiar with many of the songs used, nor were the song right-away likable, unlike those in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 1. > 3) There's a lot of violence in this film. > 4) Towards the end, certain events become slightly harder for me to accept as they did not felt reasonable. They are spoilers, so I can't be specific here. > How would the the different age groups rate it? Children: (not rated for children) Teens: Good Young adults: Excellent Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Good > Rating: 4/5 (no half scores). It's worth to see it in the cinema.

The short review: It has many tense moments, all enchanced by great sound effects and a great Hans Zimmer soundtrack, but the film is too slow, has insufficient number of events and has an unsuccessful Momento(another Nolan film)-like story-telling style. > Related media: The film is based on a real event. There's a 1958 film of the same name, but I've not seen it. > What's it like?: Over 400,000 British and French soldiers trying to hold off **** invasion of France had been defeated and pushed backed to, and are surrounded on three sides at, the port of Dunkirk. What followed is a slow and deadly evacuation to England, made worse by (1) The unexpected speed and success of the German army, (2) The Royal Navy not committing its best ships to the rescue in order to save them for the next battle, (3) The presence of German submarines, fighter planes and bombers, and (4) The limited range of the RAF fighter planes flying out from England. > Pros: > 1) There were many long tense moments, all enchanced by great sound effects and a great soundtrack. In reality, the entire evacuation took place over ten days, and the soldiers had to endure the waiting, the German fighter planes and the lack of food and water. The film makes you feel the dread of the wait and fear the possibility of death. > Cons: > 1) The film moved too slowly in many scenes. In one aspect, it seemed to want to emphasise the seriousness of some events by slowing things down. In other aspects, it tried to cover the slow movement of mid-twentieth century crafts. The slow trip of a sailing boat on engine power over the English Channel was just about bearable while the slow flight of Spitfire fighters (compared to modern jet fighters) was not that fun too. The director should have told more interesting stories or did better editing to speed up the storytelling. > 2) The director had used the trope of one of his earlier film, Momento, to arrange his story in a non-linear form. However, it wasn't well done and it felt confusing and unconvincing. > 3) The director had used the actions of a several lead characters to advance the plot. But as half of the lead actors are not that well known, and there were too many of them to cover, it was hard to feel for the characters. More focus on fewer lead characters would be better. > 4) There were supposed to be thousands of sea vessels of all sizes arriving in Dunkirk during the evacuation, but I saw no more than 20 at one time when viewing from Dunkirk Beach. Surely there was enough budget get more vessels in the water or to use CGI? > 5) Considering his CV and continuing from the previous point, Nolan should have been able to get a bigger budget to have more things happen in this film. I felt more could be done. > How would the the different age groups rate it? Children: (not rated for children) Teens: Average Young adults: Good Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Good > Rating: 4/5 (no half scores). It's worth to see it in the cinema.

The short review: Better than both Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-man films, not better than Sam Raimi's best two Spider-man films. Feature-ful spider-suit nullifies Spider-man's own abilities in this unrealistic reboot that could easily be better. Still fun though! > Related media: I have watched all of the previous Marvel films and all of the Spider-man films. > What's it like?: Following Captain America: Civil War, teenager Peter Parker is gifted the advanced Spider-man suit by Tony Stark (Ironman) and he tries to be a hero, but instead gets into all sort of problems and has to learn growing-up lessons. > Pros: > 1) Peter Parker is youthful, funny and genuine here. He was older and more emotional in Raimi's versions, which I was happy with, but he was older and more cocky in Webb's versions, which I did not like. Webb's versions also lacked excitement and danger. > Cons: > 1) There are far too many unrealistic aspects in this film, both physically and technologically. I’ll start with the advanced Spider-man suit. It has far more features than Ironman’s suit, which doesn't make sense. This also lessens the value of Spider-man’s own abilities. No emphasis (through slow-motion) was made of his spider-sense or spider-reflexes, thereby negating the uniqueness of Spider-man. If Captain America dons the advanced Spider-man suit, he can become Spider-man too! > 2) The villains scavenges the alien weapons left over from the events in Marvel’s The Avengers and engineer them, in a garage, into weapons that have new abilities. I don’t see any SHIELD personnel being equipped with such weapons in past Marvel films, thus making it unlikely that the villains could have manage this. > 3) Michael Keaton is 65 years old. No attempt was made to air-brush his wrinkles away. It seemed unbelievable that a character that looks 65 years old and has no superpowers could get into so many physical activities without injuring himself or dying. His acting was good though. > 4) A ship split in two (it’s in the trailer!) would have broken up due to instability before Spider-man would have a chance to join it back together with his web, or whatever other method, not that either method would had worked before the ship take in so much water and sank anyway. > 5) Raimi’s genetically-modified spider has a more realistic chance of giving Peter superpowers through its venom, than an irradiated spider, which would have died rather quickly. > 6) The last fight between the Vulture and Spider-man was disappointing because it happened in the dark and I couldn’t see much of what was happening. Additionally, there seems to be numerous times, where the vulture could have killed Spider-man by simply grabbing him with his metal arms, but that did not happen! > 7) Tony Stark appeared too many times in this film. This is a Spider-man film! Considering his appearances and the use of his advanced Spider-man suit, this film could have been called Spider-man: The Stark Connection! > 8) There is an attempt to stuff the film with people from all racial backgrounds in the US. This felt unrealistic and hence the gesture felt overdone. > How would the the different age groups rate it? Children: Excellent Teens: Excellent Young adults: Good Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Average > Tip: There are two 'post-credit' scenes. > Rating: 4/5 (no half scores). It's worth to see it in the cinema.

The Short Verdict: It is good, not great. > Related Media: The character (Diana / Wonder Woman) had a cameo in Batman Vs Superman (BVS) recently and before that, in numerous comic books, cartoons and live action TV shows. I know a bit of her backstory. > What’s it like? This is the origin story of Diana growing up on the hidden island of Themyscira, her training, and her entry into our world to help mankind. > Pros: > 1. For a character that has not been covered in detail in a feature-length film, this endeavour is fresh, interesting and has a couple of surprises. > 2. The casting of Gal Gadot was perfect. She comes off as beautiful, genuine and caring, the characteristics you would expect of a wonder woman, regardless of whether you had known what Wonder Woman should be like. It's instant recognition, done very well. > 3. Many of the action scenes were very well done and the use of slow-motion was executed well. When the same thing was tried on BVS, it looked fake. > Cons: > 1. Some of the action scenes looked implausible. I know this is a fantasy film, but my view is that physical laws can be stretched but they should not be broken. That the film chose to break some of them unnecessarily made me feel that the film could have been done better. > 2. The film slows down at some points and gets awkward at others. Some details that do not make sense have also been left unexplained or explained poorly. Examples of this include how she was able to speak over 100 languages. Furthermore, she should be keeping the existence of Themyscira secret, but there were several people openly talking about the island and no attempt was made to stop this. > 3. There was one instance Diana sent an email to a certain famous person by simply typing the person's name in the To field. This would not work in reality! That name would need to have been underlined to indicate that her email software knows the real email address and has auto-inserted the email address there. > 4. Gal Gadot has an accent, and it seems that the director had made all the caucasian characters on Themyscira speak with the same accent, so as to explain Gal Gadot's accent as that of the people of Themyscira. It comes off as a little irritating. > How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Excellent Teenagers: Excellent Young adults: Good Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Good > 4/5 (No half scores) - Good enough to watch it in the cinema.

The Short Verdict: It is slightly poorer in every aspect compared to the excellent first Guardians of the Galaxy film (GOTG1). See my review. > Related Media: There is GOTG1 and the comics from a few decades ago. > What’s it like? Following the events in GOTG1, the Guardians had become sought-after soldiers of fortune. However, on one of these missions, Rocket (the racoon) stole from their client and the team were thus pursued by their client. The team was then saved by a being that is very powerful and has a big secret. > The film is slightly poorer in every aspect when compared to the GOTG1. > Cons: > 1. The first scene has the team perform a task given by their client. The over-the-top action becomes emblematic of the rest of the film. There were lots of flashy actions but nothing really new; funny, but not refreshingly so. The film needs to be shorter and sharper. > 2. It doesn’t make sense that the client mentioned above would require the help of the Guardians considering that they have powerful ships. Many parts of the film do not make sense. > 3. In many scenes, many characters explain their backgrounds with long speeches that were too long (and therefore dull) and too grammatically correct. Considering that they are aliens who would not have spoken English, it really seemed out of place. In other films, aliens are usually portrayed with them giving short comments with slightly poor grammar/syntax. > 4. The long speeches above rather highlighted that Chris Pratt is not a good actor. Sorry. GOTG1 was able to hide this by being quick with the editing and being slap-sticky on the comedic parts, so viewers miss this aspect. > 5. The economics and the organisational structure of the Ravagers (space pirates) are revealed to be rather un-workable. In GOTG1, many Ravagers ships and personnel were lost but they got an Infinity Stone as payment… sort of. In GOTG2, they lost even more ships and at this rate they will lose everything by the third film. > 6. The cameo by a famous actor draws undue attention to his minor character. This was a bad idea. > 7. The songs used here are much less memorable here than in Vol 1. > 8. There are five mid-/post- credit scenes but only two good ones. The director needs to know when to cut down. > Pros: > 1. The film has many funny parts. > How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Excellent Teenagers: Excellent Young adults: Excellent Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Average > 4/5 (No half scores) - Good enough to watch it in the cinema.

The short verdict: It's a weird, shocking and surprising thriller that puts a new spin on race relations in the US. It's a must-see! > Related media: I am not aware of any. > What's it like?: (All in trailer!) Caucasian girl invites African American boyfriend to see her parents in the suburbs for the first time, but everything feels weird from the beginning, including the closet-racist parents, robot-like maid and groundsman (both African American), etc. In the end, the two of them need to 'Get Out' of that suburb. It's a weird, shocking and surprising thriller that puts a new spin on race relations in the US. > Pros: > 1. The film gives a weird vibe from the very beginning to the very end, making me tense the whole time. > 2. There are many shocking and surprising instances that made me jump out of my seat! They are intelligent thrills not cheap ones. > 3. The film reminds the viewers of the race relations in the US, that despite the prohibition of slavery in the 1860s and the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s, still create uneasiness among Americans. It then goes further to suggest that nothing has really changed. > Cons: > 1. There is the usual cliche of people not moving fast enough to Get Out! Why are some people so complacent despite them being smart people and with all the warnings available? Ha ha... > 2. There are some medical procedures portrayed that should not be feasible at this time. The author has taken this film into science fiction territory, when he need not do so. > 3. What had happened to the maid and the groundsman doesn't make sense. Why choose them for that purpose? > How would the different age groups rate it? Children: (The film is not rated for them.) Teenagers: For those who can see this R-rated film, it’s an Excellent. Young adults: Excellent Medium age adults: Excellent Old adults: Excellent My rating: 5/5 (no half scores). Pay to watch it in the cinema and then buy the DVD.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The short story: The film wakes you up at the beginning and then makes you love the two leads as they go through their struggles with work and love life. I love it! > Related media: There are no related media to this film. > What's it like?: It starts with an upbeat song about the aspirations of those who wish to succeed in LA that really wakes you up and make you hunger for more. It then elaborates on what an actor and a musician would need to do to succeed in LA, as they fall in love with each other and you fall in love with them. It’s a musical, but one that you can tolerate as it doesn’t unnecessarily go into a song at every opportunity. > Pros: > 1. The opening upbeat song, Another Day of Sun, wakes you and prepares you to like the rest of the film. > 2. The two leads are very charming and you’d love them to make it in the end. > 3. All of the other songs are as good as the opener. > 4. This is a musical that you can tolerate as the actors do not unnecessarily break into song at every opportunity. > 5. The melancholic ending. The best love stories have melancholic endings. > Cons: The ending? Ha ha… No, that’s not a con. Think Casablanca. > How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Good Teenagers: Good Young adults: Excellent Medium age adults: Excellent Old adults: Excellent My rating: 5/5 (no half scores). Watch it in the cinema and then buy the DVD.

Related media: The film uses the styles and is a follow up to The Lego Movie. It also refers back to past Batman films, TV shows and comics. > What's it like?: Batman is imperious in his defeat of his enemies, including The Joker, but he does have one big weakness - his individualism - and The Joker exploit this in his plan to destroy Gotham. > Pros: > 1. The film tackles one aspect of the Batman story that has not been looked into in all of the past Batman films in a significant way. It is his individualism and his arrogance. Doing so makes this film very fresh and original. Even the trailers are very interesting! > 2. Taking a page from Deadpool, the jokes start at the very beginning. No! Even earlier than that! Even before the Warner Bros. logo is revealed! Now that shows great effort! The jokes continue until the very end, with the final song that is similar in tone to the Everything is Awesome song from The Lego Movie. There is no mid- or post-credit scene though. > 3. There are numerous jokes on Batman, Batman's incarnations in all the previous films and TV series, Bruce Wayne, Robin, Alfred, The Joker, Superman, The Justice League, The Phanthom Zone, The Wayne Mansion, The Batcave, etc., that harks back to what we knew of them already, yet opens up new possibilities into the characters and props. > 4. I prefer this film over The Lego Movie. I think that the animation here has fewer distracting flashing lights, there are more jokes, and there isn't the live action part at the end of The Lego Movie that slows that film down. > Cons: No significant cons. > How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Excellent Teenagers: Excellent Young adults: Excellent Medium age adults: Excellent Old adults: Good. > My rating: 5/5 (no half scores). Watch it in the cinemas and buy the DVD.

Related media: The film is based on novel of the same name but I have not read it. > What's it like?: An artistically-talented boy (Louis MacDougall) has to deal with a cancer-stricken mom (Felicity Jones) at home, bullies who beat him up at school and nightmares of losing his mum in a sinkhole at a church/graveyard. At 12:07 am, an old yew tree in the middle of a cemetery turns into a giant (Liam Neeson) and tells the boy that it will tell him one story per night, for three nights, after which it demands that the boy reciprocate with one story of his own. It is a film about growing up but a more central message of the film is a spoiler and would not be mentioned here. > Pros: > 1. The film tells a touching story about dealing with family member that is about to die. It would greatly appeal to those who have experienced this in real life. > 2. There was generally good acting all around. > Cons: > 1. Two major distractions are the casting of Sigourney Weaver as the boy's grandmother and Toby Kebbell as the boy's father. Clearly, the film has an English setting. While MacDougall and Jones acted like the English, Weaver and Kebbell, an American and a Brit in real life, only spoke with neutral accents. It is rather likely that Weaver's and Kebbell's characters should have spoken with English accents in the film, or have explanations of why they did not, in the form of their characters' backgrounds. That they did not, felt strange and it was a major distraction. > 2. The premise that a monster would tell you three stories and then demand that you reciprocate with one is somewhat silly. It was not as if the boy needed to cross a bridge and needed to pay with gold or needed to give a password, as in traditional fairy tales, and let's face it, this film is a fairy tale. > 3. Not all three of the stories told by the monster were particularly special. The third story was told too quickly and was not memorable. > 4. This film does feel like a cry-bait. It would not work on those who have not lost loved ones before. > How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Average Teenagers: Average Young adults: Average Medium age adults: Good Old adults: Good. > My rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Save your money and watch it on TV.

Related media: The film is based on a short story, Story of Your Life, by I have not read it. > What's it like?: Twelve spaceships arrive on Earth suddenly and the story focus on the US military enlistment of a linguist (Amy Adams) and a physicist (Jeremy Renner), among others, to investigate the spaceship that landed in Montana. The aim is to communicate with the visitors and to find out what they want. > Cons: > 1. Many of the concepts of the film do not make sense. Why would a species able to build such advanced spaceships, and hence would be advanced themselves, not have done the homework with figuring out the languages of 21st century Earth first before landing on Earth or making their presence known, hence needing me to spend nearly two hours of my time watching them do their homework (ha ha...)? While doing that, why not also figure out the 21st century Earth geopolitics so as not to land in a war zone or in a country that is more prone to strike first before asking questions, like China, Russia and the US? > 2. While we are on that, any of the recent films that pander to the China, such as Iron Man 3, The Martian, etc., always seem to skate on thin ice on the probabilities of the plot needing to depend on China. China has a restriction on the number of foreign films to be allowed to be screened there each year. Including an actor of Chinese nationality and a plot that portrays China in a good light, would up your chances of getting your film screened there. This film is doing just that. > 3. Why would the supposedly friendly visitors come with so many large ships? To make a first contact, one smaller ship would suffice. Sending so many ships would make it appear like a projection of power. Furthermore, the visitors stayed quiet for a long time and did not send out greetings that announce their intentions, thereby making everyone edgy. Then there is this elaborate process for the less advanced humans to figure out the language of the visitors, thereby keeping countries edgy for a longer time. > 4. *Spoiler* The language of the visitors, stupidly, does not have a proper order/syntax and one assumes, could only be understood by someone who had learnt it since young or had spent many years studying it. How could an advanced species have such a poor language? Just compare this to the advanced nations on Earth now. > 5. The sound editing of the film seems to have been arranged by someone less experienced than the more established artists. There were inadequate separation between different sounds and inadequate distinction between them. The sound editing in Interstellar was clear - you had quiet periods and then loud ones. Here, the different sounds were on all the time and I could not separate between the film score and sounds made by the visitors or their spaceships. > 6. The reason behind the visit was inadequately emphasised by the visitors - it was delivered too quickly and the details were poor. The reason made me ask the question, why travel such great distance (and ***) to deliver such a simple message? It could have been done using less manpower and resources, and at less risks to the visitors, by just sending a radio message. > 7. Forest Whitaker has made another film where he did the usual character actor job again, the other being in Rogue One. It didn't have much of a significance there and the the same applies here. > 8. *Spoiler* The film implies that the visitors had implanted visions of the future into Amy Adams's character, as a final twist, but I do not accept its explanation on on how the implant could have happened, thereby making me feel like it was a cheap shot. > 9. This film is ripe for parodies by HISHE and Honest Trailers. The film is much ado about nothing, much. > Pros: > ****'s the usual stuff with Oscar-bait films, good acting, etc. etc. I don't think it should win anything after watching the film. > How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Poor Teenagers: Poor Young adults: Average Medium age adults: Average Old adults: Average. My rating: 3/5 (no half scores). Save your money and watch it on TV.

Related media: This Japanese anime film is based on the manga of the same name, but I haven’t read it. > What's it like?: A comet passes over Japan and the lives of two people are inexplicably linked while a disaster impends. It is like a cross of two film tropes, the first being body-swapping between two people, seen in films such as Freaky Friday and Like Father Like Son, while the second trope is a spoiler. ### Move to the next paragraph now to skip this spoiler. ### The second trope is seen in a Korean film called Il Mare and its American remake called Lake House. > Pros: > 1. The concept of the film is rather complex as it merges Japanese culture and its beliefs with the tropes of body-swapping and one other sci-fi trope that is a spoiler. As a result, it is a film that requires a bit of attention. However, the reward at the end is well worth it. If you are into those three elements, then you’ll love this film. However, see Cons #1. > 2. I saw the American animated film, Sing, a day after watching this. The gulf in the complexity of the artwork is immense. For example, for a tree, you will see the outlines of the tree, the branches and the trunk in Sing, while the same tree in Your Name has individual leaves. Imagine the effort required to hand draw these. Imagine the effort required to animate them when there is wind! Everything is so beautifully drawn! > 3. The use of the second trope in the middle of the film elevates this film from an average-good film to a good-excellent film. > 4. Comedic elements covering childhood fantasies, high school angst and dating difficulties were used throughout the film to make this a partial comedy. They are very well done and they break the language barrier for the international audience. > Cons: > 1. The complexity of this film makes it harder for younger children or older adults to understand it fully. 2. The major problem close to end of the film was solved with a dues ex machina that was not properly explained. It need not be that way. > How would the different age groups rate it? Children: Good Teenagers: Excellent Young adults: Excellent Medium age adults: Excellent Old adults: Good. My rating: 5/5 (no half scores). It's worth it to watch it in the cinemas and then buy the DVDs.