Douglas56

The film has many problems but I will deal with just one. When the story depends almost entirely on the viewer's appreciation of a romantic love relationship between the two principal characters, then the key challenge for the writer and director (in this case the same person) is to find a way to convey the emotional content of that relationship to the viewer so that we may in some way connect and care – in the visuals, in the dialogue, in the music, whatever. In this, Pawlikowski has failed totally. The relationship depicted is opaque and impenetrable, occasionally capricious, often tedious, and always without the viewer caring one whit what might follow. And no amount of B&W, 4:3 arty cinematography or a 'powerful' soundtrack or 'inspired' acting can fix that flaw. I suspect Pawlikowski came to realise too late that he had no feel for the relationship (apparently it was based on his parents, which tells me all I need to know about the childish depiction of adult life) and so he was forced to construct an artful deceit to cover up his lack of insight. As a result, a movie that runs only 88 minutes was a chore to watch and entirely forgettable.

It's hard to dislike a movie with a textile designer (just one) among the hundreds and hundreds of people listed in the credits. The dazzling look and sound of this movie, combined with a fine cast, gives Black Panther an exhilarating edge. The plot is as dumb and unbelievable as James Bond but the bold and vivid Africanisation of the Marvel trope (complete with groovy threads and strong accents) has produced a cultural artefact which may long outlive the box office returns. One gets a glimpse of a wild notion: that a well-worn genre designed for the short-term gratification of 12-year-olds has the storytelling tools to explore in its unintellectual, visceral morality the social assumptions that underpin our adult lives. I rate it second only to Joss Whedon's first Avengers film as a true cinematic adaptation of the Marvel ethos.

A rather simple and somewhat sermonising whodunit about hard lives in a cold wilderness. It's not a great movie and Sheridan's directorial inexperience is evident, yet several scenes, especially those crafted in dialogue, are quite moving. I was disappointed by the easy slide into revenge-fueled vigilantism as a path to the film's climax. Revenge is not justice, even in Wyoming, and I see nothing admirable in depicting one as a morally acceptable substitute for the other. Jeremy Renner brings workmanlike competence to his role, while Elizabeth Olson deftly portrays a character who mixes determination and naviety in equal parts. Gil Birmingham's performance in a small role is beguiling.

Don't fall for the lavish praise, this is a disappointing film. When I saw Villeneuve's Arrival, I predicted the Blade Runner sequel may not make the grade, and unfortunately the prediction came true. Like Villeneuve's previous efforts, this film scores well for visuals and, I suppose, the soundtrack. But it is too nostalgic, too timid, too Hollywood and too long. The original Blade Runner was a cop thriller with some moral and philosophical solidity, a thrilling depiction of a world where the replicants are more recognisably us than the humans. Strip away the laboriously-worked back story and the impressive visual content and all that's left of BR 2049 is another action adventure where the good cop defeats all the bad guys. It's as if the writers were too scared to take the question of 'what is human?' a single step further, preferring to make endless references to the original film and set us up like comicbook fans, wondering what the next issue will hold. With Ridley Scott a spent force creatively and the overrated Villeneuve apparently unable to spot the dramatic flaws in a thin but very long script crammed with unlikely plot turns, the filmmakers have opted to turn a classic into a stylish clanger. The technological wizardry is occasionally intriguing but it's small compensation. Ryan Gosling is dull and grim as the protagonist in a dull and grim drama (not unlike Sicario in many respects) , and Harrison Ford does nothing to burnish our memory of Deckard. After his return to Star Wars and Blade Runner, what's next for Ford? A revival of Indiana Jones?

As a war reenactment film, Dunkirk is a cut above the average but, despite some rather obvious attempts to 'dramify' the storyline, Nolan ultimately fails to transcend the limitations imposed by a reenactment. And for all its gritty authenticity, the film is weirdly unrealistic in its portrayal of the battlefield, especially in the almost total absence of blood and gore. While it is hard for the film-goer not to be moved by the individual acts of heroism that marked the Dunkirk operation, and impressed by Nolan's visual innovations, this viewer was left feeling manipulated, unconnected with the characters and underwhelmed by the dramatic content.

A well-made film with Huppert at her best. Unfortunately the script is a contrivance that gets silly. Thrillers can be funny but they can't be silly. Verhoeven's idea is to construct an allegory that parallels the life of Elle with the stories created in her video game business. It's a cute idea but he forgets to take the audience with him.

Just an outstanding film about ordinary people, based on a script that shines with authenticity, humour and sadness. The acting is fine too, with Michelle Williams perhaps the stand-out in a strong cast. It's the sort of story that stays with you for days after and, for all the heartache it reveals in our lives, still manages to make you feel good about life. Lonergan has a great eye for places and great ear for conversation. Some might find it trifle long but it's hard to see what you could cut.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Surprisingly stupid film, and I'm someone who likes westerns. With all his acting smarts, Washington cannot save this movie from its relentless cliches and lack of excitement. The soundtrack is welcome compensation and the camera work and stunts are of a high standard, but that's the best one can say for this escapist fluff.

What can you say about a film that deal so earnestly with the life of such a remarkable man yet teeters on the edge of terrible for most of its 105 minutes? It's a big ask to make a compelling film about a number theorist or any mathematician or scientist, especially when the script needs to conform to 'true events', but most previous attempts in the genre have been more successful than this lame melodrama which bores nerds and non-nerds equally, but for different reasons. Jeremy Irons is excellent but he usually is.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The film has its virtues – principally the acting and the look, which is occasionally gorgeous – but it falls short in the most important department, the script. With a predictable plot on a well-worn theme, and with little dialogue of note, it's very hard for Villeneuve to sustain any dramatic tension. What tension there is is largely supplied by an excellent and suitably grim soundtrack. The film's 'message', if that's the right word, is that after decades of politicians' rhetoric about 'the war on drugs', the reality is that this is what drug enforcement has become - just another bloody war - with all that implies for the rule of law and the pursuit of justice. That's really the best I can say about Sicario.

This long-time fan of George Miller is disappointed. Mad Max II remains one of my favourite films of all time but Fury Road is little more than an extravagant remake of the final break-out scene of the second movie. This has precious little plot and no character development whatsoever. OK, so it's an action adventure but eventually it just becomes action without an adventure. Its predecessor, made for circa $2 million in 1981, was so much more – a modern-day allegory, frightening, funny, and exciting as well.