Cameronius_113

Seven is, in my opinion, one of the greatest crime thrillers ever made and is one of the most significant ones ever made too. The film is essentially a study on evil told on a human level which is the scariest part about the film (despite it not being a horror film). The film provides plenty of shocking scenes, however those scenes aren't its abundance and instead it incorporates many aspects of human nature into the film as well as mythology which is one of the reasons it has remained significant to me. To begin with, as with all other Fincher films, the film is excellently directed and every second is absorbing and engaging. Something the film is well-known for is its grisly deaths which we only see the aftermaths or have it just described rather than see the murder take place, however this proves to be equally as (if not more) disturbing than the latter as it leaves our imaginations to conjure up the most messed up things possible. As a matter of fact, there is no violence visible whatsoever in the entire film which proves to be highly effective for the reason that much of it is left to the viewer's imagination and creates an unpleasant atmosphere. The setting of the film also adds plenty of effect; the name of the city that it takes place in is never mentioned, however it is shown frequently raining and always gloomy which straight away sets the scene. Another thing that is haunting about the film is how the killer has a motivation behind all of his horrifying actions, and a possibly plausable one too. Usually I would find a sadistic killer who enjoys murdering others more disturbing than anything, but the fact that somebody has a reason to go to this length to commit these awful actions is even more frightening. One of the most important elements of the film which helps for the impact is how much depth is given to the two lead characters and how they are incorporated with the story; the characters of Somerset (Morgan Freeman) and Mills (Brad Pitt) are essentially a spin on the "buddy cop scenario" (for example Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon) however their human lives really do help play in with the story. Somerset is a cop who is close to retirement and can't wait to leave the area, whereas Mills in contrast is a young eager cop with a good life and the rest of it ahead of him; the two make a perfect combination as while one is more experienced than the other, they both learn things from each other and also learn things neither of them would ever expect and in the end they're both only human. One of the scenes that displays this best is a scene where the two have dinner with Mills' wife and have a regular conversation about their lives and settling in whilst bringing humour to the situation too which gives them a scene where they're all on the same level as each other. Mythology plays a key part in the film too; of course in the film the killer uses the Seven Deadly Sins as a motive and these ancient beliefs fuel many of the themes of the film. A character in the film mentions how these events will be long forgotten, however once the cycle is complete a convincing picture of evil has been painted and has left a long-lasting presence to the audience which shows how masterfully each element of this film has been put together in order to create the finishing result. Overall, Seven is easily one of the greatest crime films ever made and one of the most significant due to its themes, brilliant direction and great characters. A must-watch film in my opinion. 8.7/10

Reservoir Dogs was released in 1992 and was directed by Quentin Tarantino in his directorial debut. The film is about a group of strangers who band together for a jewellery heist, however after it goes terribly wrong they take refuge in a warehouse whilst they begin to suspect that one of them is an undercover police officer. Because of this being his first film, it really shows throughout the film how ambitious and excited Tarantino was to be making it; the film is full of style and great direction. To start off with, the film feels very raw and realistic which I loved and nothing feels altered to fit the accustoms of cinema, and I could genuinely believe that all of this stuff happened in real life. It is extremely impressive for an independent film and cleverly made throughout. Even though the film's cast are known only by colours, they each have a memorable quality for them which makes them feel more like real people; Mr White supports others frequently, Mr Pink only looks out for himself, Mr Blonde is essentially a psychopath and Mr Orange is a newcomer with not much experience. Each cast member gives a great performance, however there are some slight issues with some characters that I'll get onto later. The film's story is told in a non-linear structure, with the present section of the film taking place entirely within a warehouse. Each character recounts what happened to them and we are shown parts of their backstory leading up to the robbery, as well as a few things that occurred afterwards. The intelligent thing that the film does is never actual show the heist itself as even though by the end of the film most things would be solved, it leaves some mystery still lingering there and makes the film more intriguing throughout rather than just simply showing stuff. It is clear throughout that Tarantino is a huge fan of classic songs and films, and the inclusions of these references don't overstuff the film in any way and instead makes it more unique and stylish than your average crime film at the time. Music is also cleverly used ironically throughout the film too, as in one scene a man is being tortured in a very brutal manner but due to the happy song playing in the scene it makes you relax and enjoy it, until the moment when the music goes off and you realise what really just happened. So the setup for the film is absolutely brilliant and it is thoroughly entertaining throughout, however when I look back at the film I realised that not really much happens in it; there's the criminals arguing about what happened, them going to do their business and then the rat is revealed. While I liked the reveal, I found it to happen very out of the blue and I personally thought it would have been much more interesting if the criminals had to piece things like clues together themselves to work out the truth, and due to them each likely having a different perspective it would cause a conflict between them (which is what the film makes). What we received wasn't bad or lazy, I was just hoping for something more intriguing. I also felt there were a few unnecessary elements to the film. There was one particular character who was rather pointless and he literally has no character in the film, even the poster and the tagline of the film forgot he existed. The fact that he is rather unknown creates a suspicion throughout that he may be the mole, however after we find out that he isn't the mole it makes his character pointless in the end. There is another character in the film who pretty much has the same sort of role as the other one (a McGuffin), but what was different about this character was that he was an amusing person and had some sort of character to him, and it's also clear that the film is aware of his part in the film as in the very first scene he is subtly set up as a non-important character. Another thing I felt which may have just been me was I thought that the backstory for Mr Orange went on for a bit too long, as it sets up both his character and also the start of the robbery because of his character being the last one whose backstory is shown. These two parts are shown without any cuts in between which felt a bit overlong to me (the film doesn't feel overlong in total length though). However, I may be the only one with that gripe like I said. As I ended the review with my criticisms, it may sound like I gave the film a mediocre review but overall, I thought that this film was great and the issues I pointed out weren't major but things I felt could've been done slightly better. I had a blast watching the film and I would happily rewatch it any time; it has great performances from the cast, an interesting and intriguing storyline, lots of style and a very entertaining film throughout, however there were one or two things I would change if I was the one who had made the film. 8.3/10

Dunkirk was released in 2017 and was directed by Christopher Nolan. The film is a representation of the events that occured in Dunkirk during the second World War when hundreds of thousands of British soliders were trapped on the island's beaches whilst waiting for help to come. Christopher Nolan is a director well-known in the filmmaking industry today for being very ambitious and making films huge in scope; this film is a prime example. The film never tries to change itself to suit another audience or sub-genre and sticks to its own agenda of telling the story of the events that actually went down and how they occured, which is why some audience members may not be huge fans of this film. The film isn't like most other war films such as Saving Private Ryan which incorporate many drama elements into them to make a more involving story; this film chooses to focus on the scale of the event rather than focusing on the characters of the film, focusing on characters being typically what most war films do and how the situation they are in is affecting them. The characters of this film are not a big part and there isn't much dialogue in the film either, which may put off some audience members for not being able to connect with characters. However, I do very much appreciate the fact that the film was never overly-dramatised or included needless exposition for the characters as they are not the focal point of the film, which is the main thing that sets this film apart from other war films I have seen. As I've mentioned multiple times, the film is very ambitious in showing the scale of this event: the film has three different storylines occuring simultaneosly (one on land, one on sea, one on air) which helps to show how the event affected many more than just the soldiers stranded on the island. Also, the film is visually fantastic as well as the sound too; every single time a bullet shot or a plane flew by, I as an audience member felt in the moment of what had happened. The music in the background also added to the intensity of the film, one notable part of the score was a clock ticking throughout which added to the sense of urgency in each scene. There never really is a second in the film where anything stops to take a breath. What I appreciated the most about Dunkirk was how it was rather experimental in parts, and has tried things that many other war films have never done before. The fact that the event itself was chose as the focal point was the key to creating an immersive cinematic experience and it was an "experiment" that overall proved to be very effective. It never turns over to show the political side to the story or add unnecessary character drama as, as Nolan himself as stated, it would "make the film bogged down" so it never felt over-crammed or messy, which is something difficult to avoid when telling a story with multiple aspects and sides to it. Thankfully the film wasn't overly long either, having a runtime of just 105 minutes when compared to other films of Nolan's such as The Dark Knight Rises (which has a runtime of around 165 minutes) and therefore it never dragged on or felt stretched out or boring. Overall, Dunkirk is a film that may not be appealing to most audience members due to it taking a risk in its focal point, however I very much appreciated a change in style and this is a war film that I will definitely always remember and hopefully others will too. I would highly recommend this film, however only to the right audience. 8.1/10

Baby Driver was released in 2017 and directed by Edgar Wright. The film is about a young getaway driver named Baby (Ansel Elgort) who has been associated with a crime boss for most of his life and begins to partake in a series of heists which in exchange will provide him with the life that he wants. Edgar Wright is without a doubt one of the most unique filmmakers working today and what makes each of his films clearly stand out from one another is how he incorporates style into each of his films, and I don't think there's ever been a case in any of his films where he has preferred style over substance. He uses the style aspect of the film to his advantage and essentially the style ends up creating the substance in his films, and this film is a prime example of that. An interesting supplement to the film was the music which was evidently going to be frequently present as made clear by the marketing, however I was very impressed with how the music was integrated with the filmmaking itself; I very much appreciated the fact that it wasn't simply just there to make certain scenes/sequences more fun and entertaining or just to make more profits off of a soundtrack, and instead it was used to help develop multiple things about the film from the characters to the world that the film takes place in. One of the big highlights of the film is of course the car chases which are easily among some of the best I've ever seen in a film to date. Not only were they excellently shot (no shaky cam), choreographed and also edited, the stylistic parts of the film really helped add the adrenaline to each sequence; from the very first scene, the build-up of music adds an unbelievable amount of tension and excitement all at once and when the chase finally begins you are immediately on the edge of your seat. The performances are great all-around; Ansel Elgort does a great job as the main character of Baby and while he does have a quiet persona, it avoids turning him into a bland, lifeless character and instead the music and style of the film helps us relate to him with his inner passion and understand his character. Another notable performance is Jon Hamm in a great performance as quite a challenging character. I know that I've mentioned the music and style multiple times but it is easily the most surprisingly important element of the entire film as it not only provides an entertaining backtrack to multiple sequences, it also helps realise plenty of the characters, Baby in particular; as I stated earlier his character doesn't speak much but we're able to learn so much about him as the music appears as some sort of demonstration of his personality and we learn everything we need to about the characters without the need for exposition to explain them. In conclusion, the style creates the substance. The film retains an incredible pace throughout (a notable element in all Edgar Wright films) and also has a great deal of humour too, also in multiple places it goes in directions that you may not expect and cleverly avoids the clichés which makes for an even more thrilling ride. Overall, Baby Driver was a constantly thrilling, excellently paced, expertly crafted film that uses the style to its advantage which creates a very unique film which will undoubtedly become a classic in later years. I highly recommend it. 8.1/10

Fight Club was released in 1999 and was directed by David Fincher. The film is about an office worker (Edward Norton) who is unhappy with his current life, however when he meets the rebellious Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), he gains confidence to prove his humanity. Watching Fight Club was without a doubt one of the most unique viewing experiences I've ever had. The film excels in delivering its themes and social commentaries on a human level that the audience can relate with, as we all must dream at some point we can be like a person such as Tyler Durden; confident, no fear and not a care in the world. The film is ultimately a satire (albeit a very dark one) as we see the world through the perspective of Edward Norton's character (known as 'The Narrator'). The audience can relate to both characters of The Narrator and Tyler Durden as they are almost complete opposites of each other, yet we've all felt like both of their characters at some point; we understand these characters and they understand us back. Norton and Pitt also give fantastic performances and you instantly know that these two are the perfect duo. Every time something brutal occurs in Fight Club it has extreme significance; every single punch is each character proving who they are and their humanity, none of it is thrown in just to simply shock the audience. Whenever fights occur, the viewer feels like they're in there with the opponents too. The entire film is a battle, with the opponents fighting physically and characters fighting themselves psychologically as well, with the physical fights being a physical representation of the battles they have within themselves. All of these sorts of things in the film constantly toy with the viewer's emotions due to how close you feel to them. The way the film is directed is brilliant; director David Fincher directs each scene with lots of energy and also includes many interesting details in shots too. Some camera techniques used include focusing simply just on the object directly in front of the camera which works well in scenes with Edward Norton's character, displaying how he feels alone and how there is no world around him. Even scenes like the opening title sequence are directed in a fashion which makes them exciting to watch. Overall, Fight Club is an excellent film that all of us can relate to easily, and can also possibly learn something from too. There's much more to the film than what's on the surface and also much more than I have stated in this review, however plenty of it is amazing to experience yourself while watching the film. Fight Club will definitely stay relevant for many years to come and will continue to toy with people's emotions constantly, and if you haven't seen Fight Club then I don't have a clue what you're doing with your life. 8.9/10 Yeah, I know I wasn't supposed to talk about it. But it's so good it's impossible not to

Die Hard with a Vengeance was released in 1995 and was directed by John McTiernan. It is the third film in the Die Hard series and is about officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) who is called into action to stop a terrorist who is detonating areas around New York City. As someone who wasn't a big fan of Die Hard 2, this film impressed me lots and was a big improvement over the previous instalment. For me, Die Hard 2 was a rather bland action film with nothing particularly smart about it and at the same time felt too similar to the original with McClane's wife being in peril and also the fact that it too took place at Christmas, just like the first. This entry was refreshingly different and made for a great viewing experience. The film gets off to a very strong start with brilliant pacing; we're given our situations at an expert pace and we're introduced to our characters without any slow or exposition-heavy moments. Right from the get-go, the main villain begins to play his cleverly-written game of cat-and-mouse with the heroes which was very exciting and tense. Right from the start I knew this would be much better than Die Hard 2 as it proves straight away that it has wildly different ideas and provides a whole new exciting experience. Bruce Willis is once again great in the role of John McClane and the film doesn't slow itself down at any points to let us know what stage of his life he is in, and instead gives us the information over the course of the film which makes for a more effective way of giving us information rather than blatant exposition. Samuel L. Jackson was also great as Zeus, the person of whom John tags along with; the two had fantastic chemistry and I'd be more than happy to see them in a Die Hard film together again. Unfortunately, after the excellent first half, the film becomes rather bland after the point where the villain stops toying around with the heroes like he did earlier and the film becomes a rather bland action picture like Die Hard 2 was. The film did maintain the expert pace and never took a minute to breathe but was not anywhere near as thrilling as the previous half was. Also, the ending of the film felt very tacked on and much like a reshoot; because that's exactly what it was. The way the scene prior to the final scene set up the ending only worked with the original ending it was expecting, however because of the studio wanting it to be changed, the ending we received feels very out of place and overall dissatisfying. Overall, Die Hard with a Vengeance was the sequel we should have initially received instead of Die Hard 2 in my opinion and started off with many fresh ideas and constant tension as well as a brilliant pace, however most of these elements are sadly lost in the latter half and the film becomes a bland action picture towards the end. I was also dissatisfied by the new ending too and how it really didn't work at all. However, I would still recommend this film to the fans of the original Die Hard, even though the film does begin to run out of steam later on. 7.8/10

Spider-Man was released in 2002 and was directed by Sam Raimi. The film is about a high school kid named Peter Parker whose life changes completely when he is bitten by a radioactive spider and gains superpowers, going on to develop the alter-ego of Spider-Man. What makes this movie stand out from other superhero movies is how much attention to human detail it is given; we're presented with relatable every-day characters which we begin to care for because of how much we identify with them and it becomes a story you can understand and doesn't seem out-of-this-world like many other superhero films. The director also understands how to balance the amount of time given to both the human side and the superhero sides of the characters. Tobey Maguire is perfect as Spider-Man and even though I think Tom Holland will do a greatn job in the new Spider-Man: Homecoming, Tobey is the true Spider-Man in my eyes. He captures the character of Peter Parker perfectly; awkward and quirky but a character you can identify with and relate to and therefore care for. His traits combined with Maguire's performance make him a very likeable character and a great lead. The relationship between Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and Peter Parker was handled in a realistic, albeit very entertaining manner and there are multiple situations that many can relate to as they can put themselves in the positions of both of those characters and feel what they are feeling which makes their relationship one that audiences can connect with. Willem Dafoe portrays the main antagonist of Norman Osborn/the Green Goblin. I loved his performance as Oborn and he was a fascinating, complex character, however I couldn't really buy the Green Goblin too well. I understand that the film is supposed to be comical and goofy at times and for the most part that aspect is handled well but I think they might have gone just a bit too far with this villain; his motivations for acting this crazy don't really make much sense and he literally says and does every supervillain cliche in the book. His costume also looks absolutely ridiculous and it's impossible to take him seriously, however this isn't something that holds the movie down too much. I've also got to mention how amazing J.K Simmons is as J. Jonah Jameson; all I can say is perfect casting choice. This film is a film that certainly has dated, however it isn't necessarily a negative point. When you watch it, you can instantly tell that it's from the early 2000s, whereas watching the other two you'll have a harder time working out what time period it's from. It's mainly the style of the film which has made it dated, the biggest reason being the character of the Green Goblin for me. Like I said, this isn't necessarily a negative point but something I felt should be said. Conversely, the style is also something which makes the movie unique as what it is and gives it the comic-book feel, but not going too over-the-top (most of the time anyway). The style adds for plenty of humour which was refreshing to see and makes the movie even more charming. Overall, I don't really have anything else to say about this movie and I thought it was really good, with a great lead character and a director who clearly understands the material. It's a film that has certainly dated, however it isn't necessarily a bad thing. 7.8/10

Logan was released in 2017 and was directed by James Mangold. The film is a new instalment in the X-Men universe and is the final film starring the centre characters of Logan (Wolverine) and Charles Xavier, showing them tasked with protecting a young girl. What I love about this film is that it doesn't feel like your average superhero movie (evident from the trailers) and is instead a very human story, hence the title going for Wolverine's human name of 'Logan'. Over time we've seen people's expectations for comic book change quite drastically and we're in a period of time now where expectations are changing rapidly. However, this film bravely ignores the trends and goes for what it wants to be and I highly appreciate it for that. To start off with, this movie does indeed have an R rating and is very brutal. I knew this was going to be something before I even saw it and I was kind of afraid whether or not this would be too big of a change from the previous X-Men films. Thankfully, the R rating felt necessary and required and if the film was PG-13 it would have nowhere near as much of an impact. The fact that more strong language is included too was another concern I had for it being too big of a change but it makes sense for the characters to use this language considering what stage they are at in their lives and didn't feel like it was there just for the sake of it. The main three characters of the film are brilliant; Hugh Jackman gives a great performance as Logan and also Patrick Stewart gave a unique, emotionally deep performance as Charles Xavier, showcasing a side to the character I never thought I'd see. Newcomer Dafne Keen was also very promising as the new character Laura Kinney. Showing these characters at the dark point in their lives made for an overall more emotionally involving story and makes them discover each other in a much deeper way than they ever had before and for once the main characters feel like a family instead of just a team. The way they all interact was amazing to see and adds up to the overall 'human' theme of the story. What I probably loved the most about the film (like I mentioned just then) is how it was a human story, ignoring the trends other comic book movies are going for and being what it wants to be. It's also clear that this is a film not made solely for the money but one for the fans; you can tell they aren't adding things in simply for extra money (for example the film wasn't shot in 3D), there's no big beam in the sky for the characters to fight at the end and it also takes into consideration what films do for people in real-life too, as in the end credits it says that the film help supply thousands of jobs and it's amazing to see when a film goes the extra level with thought like that, especially nowadays when most movies are made for the money. Overall, I loved how much thought was put into this film and the fact that it was what it wanted to be, especially for the time period of superhero movies that we're in at the moment. The main cast give brilliant performances and was a great send-off for the characters we know and love. I did have one or two problems with the film (which will be in my spoiler section), however they weren't enough to hold down the film in quality. Even if they don't continue to make superhero films like this in the future, we'll always have Logan. 8.2/10 I've just got to mention that this was my most anticipated film of 2017 and the fact that I saw it the day it came out and also thought it was great made my day

The LEGO Batman Movie was released in 2017 and was directed by Chris McKay. It is a spin-off of the 2014 film The Lego Movie and explores the character of Batman introduced in that film, showcasing his sense of humour but also his loneliness. Evident from the trailers, this movie has fantastic humour and is one of the first films in a while that has got me laughing, but this time not laughing AT the movie (I've done that more times than I care to count recently). What I love about the film is that it knows exactly what it wants to be and also isn't afraid to make fun of Batman's pop culture history, no matter how recent which proves that this film definitely had some clever minds behind it. Will Arnett's portrayal of Batman is (and I'm not joking) probably the best I have seen since Michael Keaton in Tim Burton's Batman films (I'm excluding Kevin Conroy as he hasn't appeared in big-budget Batman films made for cinema). His constant use of sarcasm was easily the best part of his character and was constantly funny and it also never got old either. The character had already previously appeared in The Lego Movie but this movie really explored him in an entertaining but also involving way too. The side-characters were plain fantastic to see; Robin always puts a smile on the audience's face, Barbara Gordon's character was well-done and also the route they went with The Joker was interesting albeit amusing too and made him a proper character as I feared from the trailers that he may have turned out to be a bland villain which thankfully he didn't. As with the original Lego Movie, the animation is great and is very visually appealing; it's made to look like stop-motion animation and it genuinely does feel like it is all of the time even though it is CGI. All of the action sequences were very fun to watch with the wide range of colours and effects too. An issue one could have with the film is that it does follow a very similar plot to the original Lego Movie but with all of the great characters and humour it honestly didn't bother me at all and I was constantly invested in the film. I also found this plot to be more consistant too, with the original Lego Movie plot feeling a bit all-over-the-place for me (although most of it was tied up at the end) with lots of locations which I kind of felt were a bit unnecessary. However, this film thankfully kept within the boundaries I wanted it to. While this film does have its comedic and satirical tone, it also did have a heartfelt side which I was expecting because the original Lego Movie did too and it was done very well. It was great to see how well it delivered all of the messages that it wanted to and also explored some themes which could seem complex but in a simple, friendly way. You may think that I loved this portrayal of Batman purely because of the satirical nature of the character but there was much more to the character which was handled surprisingly much more effectively than in plenty of the recent Batman films. Overall, this was a great film to start 2017 and one that thankfully didn't disappoint. The humour is on-point and constantly hilarious and the character of Batman is possibly one of my favourite portrayals of the character in any media to-date, no joke. I was pleased to see that there was more to the film than just the humour and how well balanced the two aspects were and ultimately made a very entertaining experience. I would definitely recommend this film and is easily one of the best animated films of recent years. 7.9/10 I can't stop watching the trailers. Help

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Boyz n the Hood was released in 1991 and was directed by John Singleton. The movie is about three young men, Tre, Doughboy and Ricky who are trying to cope with the dangerous society that they live in and find a way to overcome it. One thing I loved about this film was how honest it was. It wasn't afraid to display the reality of situations which were indeed happening in real life. I think a reason it was so realistic was the fact that much of it was based off the director's own life. Speaking of the director, this was his debut film and to say this was his first he did a great job. He was also the youngest person ever to be nominated for an Academy Award at the time too. All of the cast gave great peformances, the one who surprised me the most was Ice Cube. If you knew that Ice Cube was in the movie and your reaction was "That isn't going to work any day", then I take it you've only seen the Ride Along movies. I was surprised by how sincere his character and acting was and I think the conflicts he had to face with the N.W.A and the police in the past added to his character as his character is someone who has had many run-ins with the police in the past. Another peformance I was surprised by was Laurence Fisburne as the main character Tre's (Cuba Gooding Jr.) father. He displayed the qualities **** father and someone who managed to connect with the character of Tre in multiple situations. It's probably my personal favourite peformance of his that I've seen. Like I mentioned earlier, this movie wasn't afraid to display the truth and it did it well, with many emotionally intense scenes and also many surprisingly relatable ones too. It displayed perfectly the difficulty of life for everyone living there and you felt for their characters. It also provides a good message of the right way to fight back against all of these bad things. I believe that the themes of this movie will likely stay relevant for quite a while and they can be applicable to just about anyone too and this is the reason why I think that this movie will remain important for many years to come. No wonder it's apart of the Sony Classics Collection. Overall, this was a much deeper film than I expected to see that wasn't afraid to show the realism of situations that were also going on in the real world and carried across a good and moving message. I would highly recommend this film. 8.2/10

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was released in 1989 and was directed by Steven Spielberg. This is the third movie in the franchise and the final movie in the original trilogy and follows Indy searching for the Holy Grail, accompanied by his father. I know that I've said this in every Indiana Jones review so far but Harrison Ford is still amazing as Indiana Jones with his charisma and intelligence making him such a likeable character. Sean Connery is also amazing as his father and they both share similar characteristics; intelligent, charismatic and daring. Their chemistry and the way they work together on screen is also great and they genuinely feel like father and son. What I also like about his character is that he doesn't feel slapped in and unnecessary just because they could have him in the movie and actually serves an important purpose to the story. I liked the side-characters of Sallah (who is back again from his first appearance in Raiders) and Marcus Brody as you could tell their characters weren't completely sure what they were getting into and had some quite goofy characteristics. However, this wasn't in an annoying way and instead added a much lighter tone to the story when it was required which helped give their characters a good reason to be there. There was definitely comedy in the previous two (well, maybe not as much in Temple of Doom) but in this film there are many more laughs than in the previous, many of the jokes coming from Indy's interactions with his father and that's another reason why I love this duo so much. The action is done very well like the other two films with great cinematography and lots of tension. I wouldn't say the action is as good as Raiders but it was certainly better than Temple of Doom. I prefer this one more than the others in the trilogy because it features a more personal story whereas in the others it was just a case of 'hey, let's go on an adventure'. What makes this one more personal is that it explores Indy's life much more by showing his younger days at the start and then obviously introducing his father which adds a lot more depth to the story. Overall, I loved this film. I liked it more than the other two because of its more personal story and more memorable characters. The action, while still great, isn't as good as Raiders but I found the great story and setting to be the highlight and stole the show for me. I would highly recommend this film, especially if you want to relieve yourself of the dark tone of Temple of Doom. 8.5/10

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was released in 1984 and was directed by Steven Spielberg. It is the sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark and the second instalment in the Indiana Jones series. Something that you may not know is that this film is a prequel to the first film. The only thing in the film that points this out is when it states the year at the start of the film (this one is 1935, Raiders is 1936). Other than that, there's nothing really that says that this is a prequel and it's just something I wanted to point out. I appreciate this film for being entirely different to Raiders which makes a refreshingly new experience and with a story pattern not used previously, it makes the story less predictable and therefore more exciting. Harrison Ford is still great as Indiana Jones and is as charismatic and heroic as he was in the first film. Other characters along for the ride are Willie Scott and the little kid Short Round. At first, Willie may seem quite irritating as she's constantly screaming and complaining but if you think about it that's how someone who'd never experienced these situations before would probably react. Also, towards the end of the film she seems to help a lot more which is good to see as it shows how her character has developed. Short Round is easy to love and he's quite a good character; intelligent in thinking and with no fear, much like Indy himself. His acting can seem quite unrealistic at times but he was played by a child so you can kind of let it pass and also I think it's above standards for a child actor. You can see how these characters don't have the best of relationships at first but as the film progresses their relationships grow and it's great to see them all working together in the final act. This film does have quite a dark tone to it, so dark that it contributed to the creation of a new rating: PG-13. There are things in it such as monkey brains, eyeball soup, snakes being cut open, heart being ripped out and child abuse (don't worry, none of these are as graphic as they sound). To be honest, comparing the content in this film to the original, it's not that much darker. It is certainly darker than the original but definitely not as dark as some people make it out to be. The sets in this film are great and all feel authentic. The practical effects are also still great, especially the heart scene. However, some of the green-screen isn't particularly good like in the original but it's something that doesn't appear much thankfully. There aren't really many notable action scenes in this movie; in Raiders pretty much every action scene is memorable, however the only one that really stood out to me in this film was the final bridge fight. As I began watching the film, I wasn't sure whether I was going to like it or not because not as much was as investing as the original but as the film progressed it certainly got better and the final 20 minutes are great to watch. Overall, this is a nice change from what we received in the original and is an enjoyable watch. It does have a darker tone than the original but when comparing it to the original it's not too bad. This movie is definitely not as good as Raiders but is still a very good movie and I would recommend giving it a watch. 7.8/10

Raiders of the Lost Ark was released in 1981 and was directed by Steven Spielberg. It is the combined efforts of Spielberg and George Lucas about an archaeologist determined to claim the long-lost Ark of the Covenant before the **** do. Indiana Jones was a great main character; he was charismatic, intelligent and quite a daredevil but also feels like a regular human and you do feel a sense of danger when he is doing dangerous things- you can clearly see that he gets quite wounded in multiple situations and he is in fact vulnerable and not like a supehero or anything. The action is amazing and incredibly well done and well shot. You can see how everything flows and the amount of tension is great as it is displayed clearly that every character is very vulnerable and can easily get hurt. All of the environments feel real and it really does feel like you're on the adventure with Indy. The practical effects are also amazing, examples include the ancient relics and also the infamous face-melting scene. Some of the special effects do look dated however (for example some of the green-screen isn't particularly great) but this was 35 years ago so I guess I can kind of forgive it and it's not too distracting but I guess if they were unable to use this technology that well then maybe they shouldn't have used it as much. This movie is rated PG and is pretty violent for a movie of that rating- there's quite a bit of blood and also the face-melting scene. They took it even further with the next instalment which resulted in a new rating needing to be created, PG-13. I can't make a review on this without mentioning the soundtrack; John Williams is just amazing. Overall, a great adventure movie with amazing action and a great main protagonist and a very fun ride. 8.3/10

Pulp Fiction was released in 1994 and was directed by Quentin Tarantino. The movie is basically about two hitmen, a boxer and a mob boss and his wife and how their stories which seem completely unrelated at first intertwine with each other. It's quite a clever and original concept. The movie has a unique style to it which I haven't seen in any other movie which makes a very unique experience. This was apparently based off of pulp magazines which would contain the kind of style this movie has. I honestly can't think of the words to describe the style but I can say it isn't very serious and feels intentionally unrealistic. It's also split up into many different segments to tell each seperate story which is also something I haven't seen before and also adds to the kind of 'comical' feel but not in the 'over-the-top' sense. The acting is absolutely great and every actor gives a great performance, all of which feel so natural and unscripted. Even actors who have a short time on-screen like Christopher Walken leave a memorable impact. This is probably the best-written movie I have seen so far. The writing is just so clever and adds to how natural the acting is by giving a naturally-written script. It also makes entertainment out of things that may seem strange at first but prove to be extremely effective (for example making a scene talking about hamburgers and drinks). Another thing is that whenever a character makes a point, it's always true which shows how well-written these characters are. There's also a great deal of humour and I found myself laughing a good number of times. This has got to be one of the most quotable movies ever. It just goes to show how great the script is; almost every single line in this film is quotable. The movie isn't in chronological order but the weird thing is that it works better like that. I find that this is because as you go along you see how these stories connect with each other and how all the dots join up which makes a much better experience than just showing how everything works at the start and thus removing a lot of the excitement from the rest of the film. Overall, I absolutely loved this film and this is now one of my favourite movies. The acting was great, the writing was amazing and the style to it is very unique and original and makes for an extremely entertaining watch. I would highly recommend this film. 8.8/10

WARNING: Spoilers will be necessary in the main review for me to talk about this movie in the amount of detail I want to. Final verdict will have spoiler-free conclusion The Matrix Revolutions was released in 2003 and was directed by The Wachowskis. This movie concludes the story arc began in the previous film, Reloaded and the entire trilogy as a whole. This movie feels like it was a chunk cut out of another film; barely anything happens- resolve the cliffhanger at the end of the previous film, main protagonists split up- some fight robots, others participate in the final fight, the end. This also seems to have a similar story pattern to Return of the Jedi. Some plot points in the movie seem useless like the bit at the start resolving the cliffhanger of Reloaded. It has no effect on the rest of the story and seems so slapped in and out of place. The new characters introduced in that part are never seen again afterwards and serve no purpose to the story. Also, many plot points seem rushed: Trinity dies (yes, I did say spoilers) and as she is a major character you would expect it to have more of an effect than what was given; after the scene it never appears to be brought up again. Some of the action seems off too- the first fight scene between Neo and Smith isn't good. There are loads of flashing lights so you can barely tell what is going on and the camera is really shaky too. Compare it to all of their other fight scenes in the trilogy and you just start to wonder what on earth went wrong there. At least their final fight was alright. Many people don't like the ending but I personally thought it was fine and probably the best way to end it; Neo's sacrifice seemed fitting and kind of gave him a new reason of being 'The One' for me which I liked. You can only really watch this movie if you've seen the other two as it is just a conclusion. There also isn't really much point of rewatching it as the point of watching it for me is to just find out the ending and not for the overall experience like the other two. Overall, this movie isn't that good. If you want to see the conclusion to the Matrix trilogy or that cliffhanger from Reloaded is really bugging you then I'd probably recommend this just to find out what happens and not for the overall experience. However, if you're just wanting to watch any movie at all then this one doesn't have the amount of fun the first two had and I'd probably give it a miss. 5.8/10

The Matrix Reloaded was released in 2003 and was directed by The Wachowskis and is the second instalment in The Matrix trilogy. I decided to review this one before the original film seeing as I don't really have much to say about the original, I just think it is a clever film and a great watch. However, I have plenty to say about the story arc in the next two instalments - Reloaded and Revolutions. Unlike the first film, this film focuses on the action rather than the story. The first film took time to give each aspect the attention it deserved and did it well, however this one doesn't seem as bothered about the story. The story itself is quite confusing and rather underwhelming, I got quite confused as to what was going on at times. The pacing is also quite bad at the start of the movie, taking ages to get into the actual story and just showing us stuff we don't really care about. Even though I don't like the fact that this movie prefers the action over the story, thankfully the action for the most part is great. The highway chase scene is a highlight and I loved every second of it- easily the best scene of the entire film. The way the events flowed and the way it was shot was great. Many of the other action scenes were pretty decent too, however there were some times where it didn't work as well like the Neo vs God knows how many Agent Smiths. The way the scene was shot was good and the way it flowed was also good but it was obvious that most of it was CGI and the scene seemed quite stupid at the end of the day. The ending is awful and ends completely out of the blue and feels extremely rushed with its unnecessary cliffhanger which tells you that this film was only made to set up The Matrix Revolutions, hence why they were released only six months apart. It basically says that this film was a two hour advert for Revolutions. In fact, after the credits there's actually a trailer for the next movie. So much for subtlety. With this film, I feel almost exactly how I feel with X-Men: The Last Stand; it's not a good movie, it's not a bad movie either, but it takes a huge dump on the franchise. It may seem like I bashed on this movie lots but I think it's alright at best. It certainly does have great action but the story is rather underwhelming and confusing and the ending is annoying. If you just want a dumb action movie then I would recommend this, however if you want a film as interesting and clever as the first then there's probably not much point watching this. 6.5/10 Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks it's stupid that Neo can fly.

Ghostbusters was released in 1984 and was directed by Ivan Reitman. It is about a group of scientists who are failing at their current job and decide to open up a business for catching ghosts after many ghost sightings have been heard about in New York. The main reason this movie stands out is the characters, most notably the Ghostbusters themselves. They feel like real people and the reason for that I believe is because most of their lines were made up by the actors as they went along and in real life people make up what they say as they go along which adds a sense of realism. Bill Murrary absolutely steals the show; he's funny, his character is likeable and feels real. All of the characters have great portrayals and all tell good jokes but Murray is the stand-out of the lot. The movie may seem like it's aimed at kids with all of the ghosts and whatnot but it actually has lots of adult jokes and is actually aimed more at older viewers. There's something about nearly all movies made around this time which makes them so special- many of them are so simple yet so effective. Many of the outstanding movies nowadays are those which contain complex storylines but are very good (like The Dark Knight) but it's great to see how great these older movies can be by having such a basic premise. I also need to note that the pacing in this movie is great- everything progresses quickly and never comes to a halt. I couldn't really find many issues with the movie but I do have a few. They aren't major but they are minor things I would like to point out. Winston, even though I like his character, feels like he's just 'there' and doesn't really add anything. This is probably because he is introduced later on so he kind of feels slapped in and isn't really necessary. Even though I like the final act (the fight against the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man), it feels a bit short and only lasts a couple of minutes. I'd like to have seen it cause more chaos. Also, it might just be me but it kind of ends rather abruptly. Usually in a movie, the final act goes down and then there's a final scene clearing everything up. In this it's like the credits are playing over that final scene. Imagine at the end of Star Wars (spoilers for the first Star Wars even thought you probably already know the ending), imagine the credits start rolling as soon as the Death Star has been destroyed and they are playing over the award ceremony scene. I mean, it's not like anything needs clearing up at the end of this movie but it's a bit different to other movies. Overall, this is a great movie with great characters, great dialogue and humour and also very good pacing. I would highly recommend this. 8/10

Full Metal Jacket was released in 1987 and directed by Stanley Kubrick and is set during the Vietnam War. The movie follows the journey of a marine nicknamed Private Joker through Vietnam, starting in boot camp and eventually ending up in the war. The first half of the film is set in boot camp and is amazing, one of the reasons for that being the drill instructor. Apparently, the actor who portrayed him used to do drill instructing himself so he was just left to say what he wanted to say as he knews what one would say in a real situation. This adds a sense of realism to it and that is one of the main things I like about this film- it feels very realistic and feels like you're experiencing war with them. Private Pyle was very well portrayed and his journey through boot camp is very engaging and goes places you probably wouldn't expect at times. Matthew Modine was also good as Joker, with his charisma, courageousness and relatability as a character. The grittiness of war is displayed really well, in particular in the boot camp. You see that the marines don't get to have their say and are treated like animals. Private Pyle's character shows perfectly how all of this can affect someone. The second half of the film is Joker when he is actually in the war. The quality does definitely drop here and I thought the pacing was a little off at times and it also got quite dull sometimes but it was still entertaining and the final act was very gripping and I really enjoyed it; it was constantly tense and if you watch it you'll probably see what I mean. Upon first viewing, I was quite confused as to all of the events in the second half linked together and how they were relevant to the first half but now that I've gone back over the story I understand it now and I appreciate it more now. As I stated earlier, I love how the film feels very realistic and the reason it feels like this is for the great characters I believe. Also mentioned earlier, it makes you feel like you're experiencing these events with them. Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. The first half was absolutely amazing and while the quality did drop in the second half, it was still enjoyable with a great final act and the performances for the drill instructor and Private Pyle are great. Joker is also a good main character to root for. 8.2/10

NOTE: I watched the Assembly Cut of the film, the extended version closer to the director's original vision which is supposed to be significantly better than the original version. Alien 3 was released in 1992 and was directed by David Fincher. It is the conclusion to the Alien trilogy and picks up from the events of the previous film Aliens after Ripley wakes up from cryogenic sleep on a prison planet. This movie is well-known for being hated by many, including those who worked on it. The production of the film was plagued with so many issues, including shooting without a script and with the director having little-to-no creative control. An extended cut nicknamed the 'Assembly Cut' was later released which tried to be closer to the director's original vision which is the cut I watched. I honestly quite liked this film. It might be because I watched the Assembly Cut which wasn't the supposedly bad original cut but I did think that this was actually a good film. However, it did have flaws which I'll get into later. I thought that this was a decent final instalment and dealt with many necessary dark themes. The setting of the prison planet also added to those dark themes too and there were many elements in the film which help build up the tone of the film too. I also really liked the tone and thought it fitted the film well. Just like Aliens, this one was refreshingly different to the others, with the original being a thriller, the second being an action and this one having parts of the others mixed with emotional drama and they all went together in a decent way and it didn't really feel like it was trying to be too many things at once. All of the cast gave decent performances; Sigourney Weaver gave a great performance as Ripley and something I really like about each film is that you can see how her character changes through each film so you always see a new side to her which makes for an intriguing experience. You see in this film how she is constantly being affected by the events of the previous films and how she feels she doesn't have anything to live for anymore. In one scene it displays perfectly how these events have affected her when she says to the alien, "You've been in my life so long I can't remember anything else". Also, the side-characters of the prisoners helped add to the nihilistic tone of this film and some characters began to get interesting. However, there was something they did with some of these character that I wasn't a fan of which I'll talk about in the spoiler section. Now I've got the things I liked out of the way, here are the things I didn't like. I personally wasn't a big fan of the editing style. The movie has a weird habit of showing something in a scene, then cutting to somewhere else, then cutting back to where it was before, then cutting back to the other thing and so on. From how they do this, I'm guessing this is to try and build tension but it soon gets tedious and in some scenes there is enough tension as it is anyway. This technique would've been fine in one or two scenes but this was used around four or five times. The alien itself looks absolutely awful in some scenes. In most close-ups it looks fine but in many shots taken from a distance it looks horrendous. The special effects for it are terrible and you can see some faint green lines around it in some scenes where I suppose they must've overlayed both the alien footage that was against a green screen with the regular footage. I'm thinking that the troubled production probably contributed to this as it looks incredibly rushed. Despite the flaws, I found this to be a good film and a decent conclusion to the Alien trilogy while also dealing with many necessary themes. While it can't compare in quality to the previous two, I'd still recommend watching it as it completes the trilogy (by the way, DO NOT watch the original cut, watch the Assembly Cut which I guess 'assembles' the mess that the original was). 7.2/10

NOTE: I watched the Special Edition of the film, what the creators believe to be the true version of it, so there may be things I talk about in this review that aren't featured in the original cut. Aliens was released in 1986 and was directed by James Cameron. The movie follows on from the events of 1979's Alien where the heroine Ellen Ripley wakes up from cryogenic sleep many years in the future and tries to explain her alien encounter story. When contact is lost from the now-colonized origin planet of the aliens, Ripley agrees to go with the marines to overcome her fears. This film did indeed surprise me. I definitely was expecting it to be great but when I finished it I was quite surprised to believe that I actually liked this one more than the first which was something I wasn't expecting. This is one of the rare instances where the sequel is nearly as good as/as good as/better than it's predecessor and the amount of effort put into the film was impressive. This could've easily been a cash-grab film but the amount of effort put in shows how much respect James Cameron had for the source material and also how much the actors cared about it and wanted to make a worthy sequel and their enthusiasm for the project definitely added up to it being an amazing film along with all the other great things about it. Something I love about this film is that it is very different to the first and offers a completely new experience rather than just revisiting plot elemnts of the original again. As well as being refreshingly different, it expanded on knowledge we learnt in the first much more too. Ripley's character was developed much more in this film and her inner struggles were shown too which made for a more complex and realistic character. For those of you who don't know, the Special Edition of this film is the original cut as the one that ended up in cinemas was a trimmed down version as people weren't expected to sit through 2 and a half hours. One of the parts cut from the cinema release was a background about Ripley's daughter who she obviously didn't spend much time with due to her cryogenic sleep and her sadness over this event added much more to her character and also something else I'll get onto in a minute. I thought that Ripley's relationship with the young girl Newt was great and had much more of an impact in the Special Edition; as I mentioned a minute ago, in the Special Edition we find out about Ripley's sadness of not being able to see her daughter which makes her basically treat Newt like the daughter she wish she still had which added much more of an emotional connection to it and I'm surprised that the daughter sub-plot was originally cut. All of the side-characters each added something to the story and their chemistry with each other made them feel like real people too. Their characters were well-written just like Ripley's crew in the original and you felt a sense of danger when they were in sticky situations. Something the movie did very well was keeping the tense atmosphere of the original while adding much more to it like great action and great sets. The practical effects are fantastic, especially for the time. The quality of them help capture a sense of realism to it too and really makes it feel like these characters are somewhere that actually exists. Overall, I thought this was an amazing film and I have nothing but praise for it. My basic overview of the film is that it incorporates many similar elements to the original, expanding them to a much bigger spectacle while adding much more too and this is why I prefer it to the original. As I said earlier, these two films both offer different experiences, this one being an action film and the first being a thriller. It probably depends which genre you prefer to determine which movie you prefer but either way I would still highly recommend this film. 8.7/10

Alien was released in 1979 and was directed by Ridley Scott. The movie is about a crew of a space vessel who have an alien being get on board their ship which begins to wipe them all out so they must try and defend themselves and get rid of it. The movie has a great, tensional atmosphere which is built up extremely well; many scenes are either quiet or silent which adds to the sense of isolation and the fact that their enemy could be absolutely anywhere. This is quite a slow-paced movie (nearly the first five minutes are all silent shots of panning through locations). Usually this would be a weak point but the pace works for this film as it adds to the amount of tension. Also, because of the slow pace it gives you time to appreciate how well done each small part of the film is done and makes everything memorable. The practical effects are great for the time, the alien itself is a prime example; when I first saw it I was stunned by how real it looked and to think that this was nearly 40 years ago at the time of writing this is even more stunning. There's also more effects that I loved but I'll let you experience them when you see them yourself so hopefully you'll be as equally as impressed as I was. Ellen Ripley is considered one of the greatest female leads in movies of all time and that is for good reason. She was a strong and intelligent lead and was also quite relatable at the same time. Movies I really like are ones which I guess are 'small' so they don't really move around that far if you understand what I'm talking about; they give every aspect of the film the attention they deserve and usually end up as a more interesting movie. This movie is a prime example **** one of these. This is usually regarded as a horror film, hence the tagline 'In space, no one can hear you scream'. However, there's nothing really too scary here and as I said earlier is full of tension and relies on surprises and shocks rather than scares. Overall, this was a great movie with an amazing well-built up atmosphere and gives every aspect of the film the attention it deserves, from the characters, the writing and the effects. I would highly recommend this film. 8.6/10 Who else loved Jones the Cat?

Batman Returns was released in 1992 and was directed by Tim Burton. This movie gave Tim Burton much more creative control which led to it being much darker than its predecessor. This is quite a controversial film for being much more of a 'Tim Burton' movie than a Batman one and this film receives quite a lot of hate. I find that the main reason lots of people are criticising it is for that fact, and many don't look at the movie it actually is. The first time I watched it, I wasn't really a fan but over time this film has grown on me and now it has become one of my favourite Batman ones. It may not be the best made, but one of my favourites. Once again, Michael Keaton is Batman and I loved him as much as I did previously, possibly even more this time around. I found his character to be developed much more too and it showed him in lots of danger and peril at times which wasn't shown in the original, for example when he is stuck in a hijacked Batmobile, not only must he escape before it could potentially end up crashing, it could ruin his reputation and change how the city views him. The Penguin in this movie isn't really the Penguin that everyone knows and isn't just a plain criminal. Instead he is a deformed freak who has experienced discrimination and I found his character to be very interesting and I loved Danny DeVito's portrayal. His motivation was clear and his plan was quite clever- trying to turn the city against Batman by getting respect from the public which was something that hadn't really been done in Batman at the time. Possibly my favourite character of the movie is Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. Her portrayal was definitely my favourite on-screen portrayal of the character and like Penguin, her motivation was clear. She also fit into the story well and didn't feel like she was there just because they could have her there like in the Schumacher Batman films. Batman also appears to have lots of different love interests in the original anthology of films and she is the one of this film and I think she is definitely the best. Not only is she key to the plot but their relationship was done very well and was rather complex, with their double identities causing conflict and once they discover them they're not sure whether they should align with each other or not, being friends as their public personas and enemies as their secret identities. They also realised how similar they are in character and this allows them to connect with each other. Max Schreck (played by none other than Christopher Walken) was a pretty good character, as his character is important to both of the villains' stories and is actually responsible for both of their existences in Gotham. I love the look and feel to this movie. It does feel quite different to the first but this one has that 'Tim Burton' feel that I love. As I said earlier, this film caused controversy for being more of a 'Tim Burton' film than a Batman film. The overall theme is a dark Tim Burton style and many signature things of a 'Tim Burton' film are present: a 'Danny Elfman' score (if you don't know what I mean listen to The Nightmare Before Christmas or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), a weird looking town, set around Christmas and of course clowns. I find that many people just use the fact that it isn't really a Batman film as something to criticise it for but if you look past that then this is a great film. If you are a Tim Burton fan or just want a good film to watch then I would highly recommend this but if you are specifically looking for a Batman film then probably watch another one. This is definitely one of my personal favourite Batman movies. 7.8/10 I really wish that we had a true sequel to this that wasn't Batman Forever and continued with the dark tone. However, I guess some things just aren't meant to be.

This film is the first in the series of Star Wars Anthology films which are basically side-stories which don't necessarily follow the plot of the main series (good vs evil). This movie does feel different to the main series but still keeps the Star Wars essence in there which was great as that was exactly what the movie was opting for and it was achieved well. The movie lives up to the title of 'Star Wars' quite literally unlike the other films; we see lots of galactic warfare not seen in any other Star Wars film before. The film is also shot with lots of handheld-cam which gives a 'warzone'-type feel to it which I liked. Other sides of the galaxy that aren't focused on in the main series are shown in this movie, showing other sides of the Empire and how they operate outside of destroying Rebels. It also shows how life is for regular people who aren't getting caught up in the war mess which helps to capture the feel of this being one big universe with many things going on inside it other than the story of the Skywalkers. Felicity Jones was good as the lead character Jyn Erso; her character was explored well and was good to root for. There were some members of the supporting cast that stood out, the droid K-2SO with its charisma and the force-sensitive guy too. However the others, while nice to have around, didn't really receive much development and felt quite one-dimensional at times. I also found many characters to be under-used like Forest Whitaker's character for example who I think should've played a bigger part in the story and was necessary for a lot more of it I believe. This movie blew me away visually; this has got to be one of the best-looking movies I have seen in a long time. It is absolutely outstanding to look at and I would happily have any image from this film as a screensaver or wallpaper. The CGI is also mind-blowing; there are a few characters who appeared in the original who were recreated with CGI in this film but it honestly looks amazing. You'll likely forget that the Special Edition ever existed. The thing I probably loved the most about this film was the final act and ending and how it all tied together with the rest of the trilogy. I won't go into spoilers but I just have to say it was absolutely great and there was no better way to end the film. I personally prefer The Force Awakens over this movie because even though Force Awakens reused the plot of the original film, it brought many new things like great acting, well-developed characters, emotion and great environments. This film had an original plot but didn't do as well as Force Awakens did in terms of characters and emotion. Overall, this was a pretty decent movie with amazing visuals, a good lead character and also great references to other Star Wars films. My only issues were lack of character development for some of the supporting characters and that some of the characters were under-used in my opinion like Forest Whitaker's character and Darth Vader. This film has made me intrigued to see more of the anthology films and I hope they'll expand the universe more like this movie did. 7.6/10