r96sk

It's a little heavy-footed and almost tries too hard, yet I quite enjoyed 'Just Like Heaven'. Reese Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo are a strong pairing, with Jon Heder spearheading a good support cast ably. It's a well paced film at around 90 minutes, there are some decently amusing scenes in there alongside some more sombre ones - the majority of which come off rather well. Some parts are cliché, but not to the degree that it affected my enjoyment. One that is well worth a watch, in my opinion of course.

'Boiling Point' is fab. Stephen Graham is excellent throughout, he has shown his quality as an actor to me many times down the years in different productions and this is no different - great actor. Cool to see him reunite with Alice Feetham onscreen, those two are good in TV's 'Save Me'. The rest of the cast are strong, including Vinette Robinson and Jason Flemyng. You can tell the dialogue is largely improvised, it feels a little unnatural in one or two moments but for the vast majority it comes across as real. The fact it was shot in one take also makes it all the more riveting. The film does a very fine job at showing the heat of the kitchen, literally. There are a few predictable bits (tables 7, 13), but also some scenes (Jamie) that are the opposite. All in all, it's very well made and highly watchable. I'd recommend it, for sure.

A well done flick, I'd say. I didn't even know this existed until I was invited a week or two back to go watch it, which is a surprise as I'd imagine a Whitney Houston biopic would've got enough hype that I would've seen it mentioned around the web - perhaps I just happened to miss it? Either way, I'd very much recommend 'Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance with Somebody'. I'm no Houston brainiac but of course knew of her top songs and unfortunate personal issues, I feel like the film does a commendable job at covering all aspects - the pacing is top notch, in my opinion. I'd imagine it takes liberties with the truth, as per for this genre, here and there, but that doesn't bother me much if so. Naomi Ackie is terrific in the lead role, quite the first performance of her's to watch on my part. I hope to see more! The rest of the cast, from Stanley Tucci to Ashton Sanders to Tamara Tunie to Nafessa Williams to Clarke Peters, particularly the latter, are also very good throughout. I found the run time to be spot on, while the music is - as you'd expect - excellent. Houston sure did make a tonne of hits!

Oh so simple, yet oh so sweet. 'Lunana: A Yak in the Classroom' is pretty wholesome, in short. There isn't anything revolutionary about the plot, there aren't any major events across the 100 or so minutes but that doesn't hamper the film at all. It's a breezy watch from beginning to end, with some good acting alongside some lovely visuals of Bhutan. Recommended!

Ah, I wanted to like this. It tries, but 'End of the Road' isn't something I'd wanna revisit in a great hurry. Queen Latifah and Chris Bridges (aka Ludacris) are the film's only real positive, though I will say the change in directon of the story did fool me... so kudos for that. I actually think the twist makes the story weaker, but still. I found the pacing and dialogue to be off, it does attempt heart with the main characters but sadly it just doesn't come across as natural. You could do worse, but this one fell unfortunately flat for me.

There could be a decent concept in there with The Man from... men, but in reality... 'The Man from Toronto' is poor. I like both Kevin Hart and Woody Harrelson, and they do make it more watchable than it would otherwise be, but even those two couldn't stop this from being an unfortunately dull watch for me. Nothing about this feels fresh, it came out in 2022 but could've easily come out in 2012. Hart's performance seems like something we've seen before, with it feeling - at least on the surface - the same as his roles in 'Central Intelligence' with Dwayne Johnson and in 'Ride Along' with Ice Cube. The plots are different, of course, but the vibe is pretty much the same. Hart should stick with films like 'The Upside' and 'Fatherhood', in my opinion. It's very forgettable. in short. It's not helped by an overlong run time, either.

Chadwick Boseman is undeniably missed, but 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever' still manages to produce an entertaining and even touching final chapter of the MCU's Phase Four. I had a positive time with this, one good thing about watching it almost two months after release is that I got to watch this in an empty cinema - absolute bliss. Thankfully I managed to avoid all spoilers, though had heard the name Namor bandied about online so that's all I knew coming into it. Speaking of Namor, I'm a fan. He makes for a cool new character to the universe, as does Talokan as a whole, with Tenoch Huerta a welcomed addition to the cast - first time I recall seeing him in something, and I'm impressed. The star of this 2022 flick, however, is Letitia Wright. I don't really remember her standing out in the original much, at least to me, but here Wright is excellent. Angela Bassett is very good also, there's one emotion-filled speech scene in particular that stands out in my memory. Danai Gurira is always a joy to watch, while Winston Duke and Lupita Nyong'o are the best of the rest - though, the whole cast are good; even Martin Freeman, who I'm not always convinced by. The film handles Boseman's absence nicely, there are some very touching moments in there. I'd say they went the correct way with the character of T'Challa, no-one would've been able to even closely replicate Boseman. The music, meanwhile, is pleasant. I do think this has some relatively minor pacing issues, mainly around the midway point, but other than that I felt more than satisified with what I had just watched when leaving the cinema. Phase Five, see you soon!

About on par with the original, which I suppose is the minimum you want from a sequel. I have similar thoughts about 'Enola Holmes 2' as I do for 'Enola Holmes'. Millie Bobby Brown is a strong lead, the support cast are good but the plot still isn't the most entertaining to watch unfold onscreen. I'm not sure it needed to be told over 2hrs, either. Still, I got the required amount of entertainment from it. I appreciate the message and the story it tells, as well as them (seeming to, to me anyway) toning down the fourth-wall breaking - which is a tad overdone in the 2020 flick. It seems likely that we'll be getting more of these, which I'm cool with - if the main cast remain, that is.

In a word... boring? These '365 Days' film are many a thing, but boring they are usually not - at least in the traditional sense. 'The Next 365 Days' kinda is, especially the last 30-40 minutes. Across the whole run time, I think there's less sex than usual - that's not to say there isn't sex, there's plenty, but it seemed slightly less constant. The only pluses, albeit very minor ones, I have are basically the same as before: it uses decent music and has some solid shots spattered in there. They remain pointless in their existence and very much overstay their welcome, yet I kinda couldn't not watch them. What are the odds on more sequels? There is no reason to continue the 'story', yet that hasn't exactly stopped Netflix before... has it? This one does end with something that feels like a final conclusion though, with no cliffhanger in sight, so we'll see.

Undoubtedly still awful viewing, but... I found it a tiny bit more watchable than its predecessor. '365 Days: This Day' still has nothing that even closely resembles a plot, still has extremely limited actors and still shouldn't even exist. However, I'd be lying if I said I disliked it as much as the 2020 original. It's almost like taking out the sexual violence actually makes it more digestable, who'd a thunk it?! Unlike that other release, this falls into the more common category of just simply being rubbish. I will say, though, the music kinda slaps. The film is pretty much comprised of a series of sexual music videos placed back-to-back-to-back. Some of music used is well chosen I can't deny, I Shazam'd a couple... admittedly that probably says more about my taste in music than anything else! ¯_(ツ)_/¯ There's even some minor neat cinematography, too. The positives I note are minimal, though, and don't overly help this 2022 production. I have more negatives, which also include an overlong run time and that shoddy ending. At least it marginally improves upon the film it follows, I wonder if its own sequel will do likewise? I plan to find out!

A satisfactory flick featuring Ryan Reynolds. I got enough enjoyment from 'The Adam Project'. It isn't anything special as the film is missing a certain sort of spark to it, though the story is fun and allows for some interesting and rather sweet scenes; the latter is particularly true for the conclusion, which is well produced. Reynolds himself is solid in the lead role, his performance is more serious than funny but there are still a fair amount of amusing moments for him across the 100 or so minutes. Walker Scobell gives a good showing behind the main man, his comedic timing in the first few scenes really does mirror Reynolds'. Elsewhere on the cast, Mark Ruffalo, Zoe Saldaña and Jennifer Garner are decent. I will say that I found the antagonists a bit weak in this, I wasn't all that interested in them or their side of the plot. Better villains would've heightened my enjoyment, for sure. Still, it is a film that I like.

It's good, even if I wouldn't say it's anything better or worse than its Disney animated counterpart - at least it is a marked improvement on that aforementioned company's remake, mind. The big win of 'Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio' is the stop-motion animation, which is extremely nice indeed. As for everything else? Nothing leaps out of my mind if I'm honest, even within 30mins of watching it. I personally found the design of the titular character to be 'just' OK, same goes for Sebastian J. Cricket & Co. I did like the casting of Ewan McGregor and David Bradley, particularly the latter. Christoph Waltz, meanwhile, is alright in his role. The more serious vibe of the film is a positive, though I don't think it comes across as deep as it intended (e.g. that last line from Cricket isn't, in my opinion, as effective as the film seems to think it is). As for the music: fine but forgettable, for me. Again, it's passable. I just unfortunately didn't overly care as much as I wanted to for this story and its characters. The 1940 film did it slightly better, fwiw.

Brilliant! My first film of 2023, which has started with a bang! I adore the original film from 2019 so was expecting big things from this sequel and I'm glad to note that it didn't disappoint - it's a cracker. I did, admittedly, predict the general gist of what was going to happen, though (in this case, minor) predictability doesn't always equel badness - like here, I was thoroughly entertained no matter what. The cast from the first film are better, though those that star in this 2022 release are excellent. Daniel Craig is, of course, superb as Benoit Blanc once again, every single moment with him is terrific. Janelle Monáe also gives a fantastic performance, I predominantly know of her from music but with this, and 'Hidden Figures', she can certainly act too. Kate Hudson, Dave Bautista and Edward Norton are the best of the others, though even the likes of Kathryn Hahn, Leslie Odom Jr. and Madelyn Cline are good value as well. Like its predecessor, it's very astutely cast. The film is put together in high quality fashion, Rian Johnson & Co. did a great job - particularly with the framing of certain shots, as well as the music which is real neat. As you'd expect for a film of this sort, there are some nice little details spread across the well utilised run time. Like 'Knives Out', I know I'll be revisiting 'Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery' when possible. It sounds like Johnson and Craig are up for making more of these, and to that I say bring it on!

Surprisingly, I didn't enjoy 'Scrooged' all that much. I never really clicked with this 1988 release whilst I was watching it. Bill Murray is fine, the Ghost of Christmas Past is good and the bits of the plot involving Alfre Woodard's character are decent. That's all I have for noteworthy positives, though. The vibe of the film felt off to me. I didn't connect with Murray's Frank at any point, whether it be the past, the present or the future version of him. I get, as Scrooge, you're supposed to dislike him, but I've seen a fair few versions of 'A Christmas Carol' and I feel like the Scrooge character is usually moreso cowardly bad, as in he'll be horrid to people behind their back or under his breath - as opposed to Frank Cross, who is in your face, over the top, overtly mean. Perhaps I'm misremembering or it just stuck out to me more here as I didn't like much else from the 100 or so minutes. For an Xmas flick, also, it doesn't hit the Christmassy spot either. It could've done with more warmth, or at least some entertaining and/or funny moments; I did minorly chuckle a few times, I will say, but not nearly enough. I still wouldn't describe this as a 'bad' film, but it is quite far adrift of being a positive in my books. I thought this would've be a good'un, many think it is which is fair, but for me I unfortunately didn't particularly like it.

Not exactly filled with Xmas spirit and hardly a positive message to send, though 'All Is Bright' - or 'Almost Christmas', as it is known in my neck of the woods - is still somehow worth a watch I'd say. Paul Giamatti puts in a good performance, he is certainly the film's standout in my opinion. Paul Rudd is there alongside him, though, and is also a plus point. I also like Sally Hawkins in this, even though her questionable accent takes a little while to get used to. Elsewhere, it's neat seeing Colman Domingo involved - albeit in a minor role. It's an odd one, at least for the genre it is attached to. It's moreso a tale at Christmas, rather than a Christmas tale. One I did just narrowly enjoy.

The star cast elevate this a lot. Ben Affleck, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate and Catherine O'Hara are, honestly, the only reasons this was watchable, for me personally at least. If it was a film with a lesser known cast, I wouldn't have any positives for it. For a festive flick, it's a little too mean-spirited. Of course that's the way these films usually go so the eventual pay-off can occur, though with this it's a bit too the other way and the aforementioned pay-off isn't all that pleasant. You gotta make the characters way more likeable if you're only gonna redeem them a tiny bit. 'Surviving Christmas' is at least only a relatively short film at around 90 minutes and there are a couple (if not enough) amusing moments. There's also a surprisingly topical commentary on unintentionally consenting your likeness away via photos - I'm looking at you, latest Instagram trend.

I got exactly what I wanted from this sequel - Denzel Washington brings another great performance, and thankfully the rest of the production improves upon the original. I thoroughly enjoyed this. It's still nothing that gave me any sort of wow factor, admittedly, but it has that extra little something more that I felt the 2014 film was missing. The supporting cast/characters are more memorable for one, with Pedro Pascal and Ashton Sanders being very welcomed additions. Pacing-wise it's also improved, as is the whole vibe of the flick in truth. The twist is a good'un, while the use of weather is excellent; using stormy conditions can easily be overdone, as seen in 2020's 'Force of Nature' for example, but it really adds to the atmosphere here nicely. We're just short of a year from 'The Equalizer 3'? Sign me up!

Denzel Washington saves the day. There's nothing I'd consider special about 'The Equalizer', though thanks to a typically stellar performance from lead Washington I still had a fun time watching this 2014 release. It's a great showing from Denzel, not that that is a surprise given he is - alongside Leonardo DiCaprio - my favourite actor. Otherwise, it's a pretty standard vigilante action flick which probably goes on for slightly too long and features some forgettable, if solid, support cast/characters, the latter is especially true for the rather plain villains. The music is also standard, though does improve towards the end with the final score and end credit soundtrack. All in all, a worthwhile watch thanks to Denzel. I'm hoping the sequel, whilst still featuring a top lead performance, is more of a well rounded effort - I guess I'll soon see!

Edgar Wright's most recent film is... very good! I don't love (but still like) the ending as much as the rest of it, though 'Last Night in Soho' is an extremely enjoyable psychological horror flick. The film's aesthetic is top notch, while the performances of Thomasin McKenzie and Anya Taylor-Joy are brilliant; the way their story is portrayed is real nice. Diana Rigg, Matt Smith and Terence Stamp are involved too. I do have a few lesser things to mention. The fashion college classmates being hella cartoony is one, though the only main one is the end reveal... it kinda underwhelmed me, even if there's nothing inherently wrong with it. As it happened I was just like "well, OK...". I think I expected greater based on what precedes. It's a 'good' conclusion, still. All in all, it just falls short of being something I'd consider as 'great' but I still had a positive time with it and would happily revisit it. As for its standing in my Edgar Wright ranking, it's top three... though, to be honest, all of his movies - 'A **** of Fingers' aside - are good.

Edgar Wright's first film is... not good, pretty bad in fact. 'A **** of Fingers' does work in small doses, though all in all it's rather limp. The early stages, the opening 25 minutes or so, are solid if hit-and-miss, unfortunately the rest is heavy in the miss department. There are some mildly amusing bits, the Clint Eastwood/'A **** of Dollars' schtick is decent but quickly runs dry. There isn't much to talk about regarding the cast, they give alright performances I guess - Graham Low sticks out most, as you'd expect. The film coulda done without the Native American stuff, which is not only lazy and rather unsavoury. The, unexpected, animated bit was cool though. The best part of this film? The poster. Noice.

I finally watched the final part of the so-called Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy. I'm not actually a massive fan of the preceding two films, like don't get me wrong they are good films - I've just never been, unlike the majority it seems, overtly into them. 'The World’s End' continues that trend. Early on I was actually expecting this to be great to me, but it basically levels out by the end; 'Hot Fuzz' (3½*) remains my fav. As alluded to, the first chunk of the film I was properly enjoying it - I was really liking the vibe of it. Then the twist happens. It's actually a great twist, I wasn't expecting it at all, but I feel what follows it isn't as enjoyable. It's silly fun, though not much more. The cast are very good, probably my standout from the three films. Of course Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are the staples and are excellent. Paddy Considine, Martin Freeman, Eddie Marsan and Rosamund Pike, meanwhile, is nice casting. David Bradley, Pierce Brosnan and Bill Nighy are there too.

As usual for the MCU, 'Thor: Love and Thunder' is a good watch. I did want more from it, though. Chris Hemsworth remains the star of the show, I'm adding nothing new by saying he is just perfect for the role. Tessa Thompson, Taika Waititi and Natalie Portman all make for good support. Christian Bale is also someone I enjoyed, I like the look of his character but kinda felt that I wanted to see more of him - it's like we see a beginning and an end, but part of me feels like we coulda had something in-between. The special effects are solid, as is the music; even if the track choices aren't the most creative. I probably would've shortened the run time a little, though that isn't anything all that noteworthy to be honest. There are some funny moments in there, which is always something I expect from a Taika Waititi flick. As for me and my own personal Thor ranking, this - like the 2011 original (also 3) - isn't one of my favourites (fwiw, I enjoy 'Thor: The Dark World' and 'Thor: Ragnarok' (both 4) way more) but it's still a fun enough time that I'd recommend it. I simply cannot (cannot, I tell you!) believe they didn't just call this 'Thor Four' btw...

Oof. As I always say when I give films such a bad rating/review (though, tbf, only the ninth time I've rated 1/10...), it is nothing personal and I respect everyone who worked on this film and, of course, understand it isn't easy to make films. I never enjoy slating one, but this... deary me. I'm not sure where to begin. The dialogue. The dialogue! I genuinely do not believe I've seen a movie with such truly awful dialogue, the amount of times I was holding my head out of cringe was immeasurable. You just know the writer, presumably one Werner Herzog, thought he was prime William Shakespeare when he put it all together. It's not just terrible in itself, it also simply isn't written for the actors - none of it sounds natural out of them whatsoever. Talking of the actors, they merit some iffiness too. Listen, they are severely hampered by those behind the scenes but more was needed - especially from Michael Shannon, who I am a big fan of but his performance is... questionable, at best. Again, the ill-fitting dialogue did not help. Elsewhere, Veronica Ferres tries and is likeable but... yeah, not good. At least the Arancibia kids add some charm to things. Those children are put into the film around the middle and somehow (nothing bad on them, just their characters) stay until the very end. Those scenes with them, and Ferres' Laura, are sweet in isolation (pardon the pun), but wow do they feel entirely out of place and disconnected (pardon the p...) to everything that proceeds - to the point that the sweetness drains away. 1/10 always feels harsh to me, yet this is very much deserving of that rating in my opinion. Dire stuff, even at just around 90 minutes. The kids and the neat locations are all I've got by way of positives.

I enjoyed 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World'. The early scenes are surprisingly (given the relatively close release dates) similar to fellow 2003 release 'Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl', with a hidden enemy ship spotted amid foggy conditions and then one person spots unexpected cannon fire and tells others to duck... there are even main characters named Jack (lead!) and Will! With those amusing (to me, given that POTC is my favourite film) connections noted, the film goes on, of course, to do it's own thing and I'd say it comes out very nicely. The constant (supremely shot) action is a major plus, as are the performances of Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany. I coulda done with more characterization for those behind Crowe and Bettany as I didn't overly care for them, though the support cast are all solid to be fair.

A very good action thriller. '21 Bridges' has an excellent showing from Chadwick Boseman, everything else isn't quite up to his level though is all still very good. The support cast, which includes the likes of J. K. Simmons and Taylor Kitsch, pacing and music are my main pluses for this 2019 flick. It's far from perfect of course, but I personally I got what I wanted from it and would happily watch it again.

Just as awful as I had anticipated. With that said, it's nothing so bad that it offended me - it's simply totally and utterly bad, to the point I kinda find it hard to hate on it because I just don't have any thoughts on it. It is, without question, undoubtedly worse than 1994's 'The Mask' in every conceivable way though. Jamie Kennedy's version of this Dark Horse Comics character is truly dreadful, especially visually, though thankfully the film doesn't actually give that much air time to Kennedy as The Mask; like, he's there but it's predominantly the dog and the son that get much of the screen time alongside Alan Cumming's Loki - to slightly better effect too, the way the kid is animated kinda nearly works... it doesn't, but almost. Ryan Reynolds, according to Kennedy himself, possibly wanted this role. It's lucky Reynolds didn't get his way, or he'd be stuck with a green ghoul in his past. Oh, wait! 4/10 is probably generous on my part, though there are far worse films out there that actually annoy me - 'Son of the Mask' honestly doesn't. It kinda just exists and I'm almost nonplussed about it.

Not as good as I remember, still an amusing watch regardless. It's been many, many years since I last watched 'The Mask', hence why I hadn't had it logged on here before now, and while it isn't as funny or as quotable as I thought it would be (I remember really liking it as a kid), there is still enough in there that I got much entertainment from. Jim Carrey's performance is superb, without him you'd have a very cringe and ultimately disappointing flick. Interesting to note that he did this, 'Ace Ventura: Pet Detective' and 'Dumb and Dumber' (which I gotta see at some point!) all in 1994 - quite the year! Peter Greene and Peter Riegert are also involved, though it's very much the debuting Cameron Diaz that is the best of the rest behind Carrey. Apparently this had a sequel released in 2005, 'Son of the Mask'. On paper it should be awful, so therefore I gotta go check it out!

Pretty good! I wouldn't class 'JCVD' as anything above that, though it is a film worth watching. I really like the way the story is portrayed, while it's interesting to have JCVD play JCVD. It's not as entertaining as it perhaps could've been, though it merits props for how it's put together and how it comes out - which is positively

Split opinion on this. Overall, though, I think my thoughts regarding it are, just narrowly, positive. 'Where the Crawdads Sing' is a tad overlong and I'm not sold on the ending, though even so I think I like this enough. The acting is the big reason for that, with Daisy Edgar-Jones standing out alongside David Strathairn. Taylor John Smith and Garret Dillahunt are solid elsewhere. Away from the actors, most other elements are forgettable. The conclusion is iffy to me. It was clear the film was holding something back in regards to the story, though the way it eventually goes isn't the most satisfying to me personally. It's a pretty straightforward film, when all is said and done. It's close to being what I'd consider a miss, but I reckon it just about does enough right. 6/10 doesn't feel fitting to me, so 7/10 it is.

Silly entertainment! 'The Mexican' works as a comedy and works as an adventure road trip flick, so it evidently achieved what it set out to do. This 2001 release features a strong cast, as we get Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts together alongside James Gandolfini, J. K. Simmons and Gene Hackman. I enjoyed all five, especially the first three. It's not a film to be taken overly serious, it's one to enjoy and I got a lot of enjoyment from it - credit to Gore Verbinski & Co. Recommended? Definitely!

'Election' builds relatively slowly though really does become a fun movie by its conclusion. It's most definitely worth a watch. Matthew Broderick is excellent throughout, as are the likes of Reese Witherspoon and Chris Klein. The films goes to some unexpected places and manages to make it work. And there's a great callback in there too. I will say that I didn't love the internal monologue bits, but they didn't derail the film for me in any major way.

'Jurassic World Dominion' is far from perfect, if just about entertaining to watch... kinda. I'm not fully convinced by it but I do think there's enough in there that's worth watching. There are too many characters, even main characters with the original trio and the newer duo both involved equally. With that said, I do like 'em. It's pleasant to see Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum, while Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard are a good pairing. Still, I wouldn't say any one character stands out here. They all make their presence known, though I'm struggling to remember any great moments individually - that's due to the aforementioned surplus. The rest of the cast, fwiw, are all fine - Mamoudou Athie sticks out most in that regard. The run time is overlong, in my opinion. I personally could've done without 30 or so minutes and I wouldn't have felt it was missing anything. The story itself isn't all that fresh, as in I feel like I've seen this sorta thing before (I mean, Biosyn... how creative!), but the barrage of dinosaur-centric action probably just abouts tips it over into a positive rating for yours truly. Could easily be lower, though. I'd love for this to be the end of the Jurassic franchise (is there much more to tell?) but there ain't no way Amblin/Universal are leaving this IP to collect dust, let's be honest.

A little light on story, though that stop-motion animation is noice. At just under 1hr 20mins, 'James and the Giant Peach is simply a pleasant to watch flick with a sweet story and excellent animation. Miriam Margolyes and Joanna Lumley as the aunts is great casting, while the voice cast all perform well. I like it enough, even with the ineffective singing bits. Overall, this 1996 release is, in my opinion, nothing great but nothing bad either.

I can't say I view this one positively. I clearly don't get it, which I'm fine with. I'm all for films that don't play it so straight that it's predictable, but at the same time I'm rarely a fan of films that are so full of themselves to end in such a derisory way. Listen, that's probably harsh as it is still a good flick no doubt, but 'No Country for Old Men' is highly unsatisfactory and highly uninspiring for me. I will say that I have no issues with the cast whatsoever, they are all fantastic. Javier Bardem is awesome, easily the star, and Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin and Woody Harrelson are all top value. Kelly Macdonald and Garret Dillahunt are also involved, I like them too. Stephen Root, Mr. 'L for Love' himself, as well. Away from the onscreen bunch, the cinematography is superb. It's the story. I didn't get what I wanted from it, at all. All the ingredients are there for a 10/10 film, that's the level I was expecting it to reach based on the opening half or so. The second half though... super disappointing! So many underwhelming choices. Such a waste of a strong cast... 'The Counselor'-esque. Bardem is also in that, sorry my dude! The fact I'm still giving this what I consider to be a positive rating shows how much the conclusion frustrated me. This had top tier written all over it but it somehow messed it up as it went by... and I'm not usually one to dig out a film's ending. In my defence, even some reviews (many, in fact) from people who love the film mention that the ending isn't perfect so I guess it just comes down to how the final moments sit with you. For me, evidently not good!

Different, but I actually liked it. 'Zola' takes a few scenes to get into it and to get used to the stylistic choices, namely with the editing and dialogue, though by the end I did in fact enjoy this film. It's a bonkers story, one that I semi heard about when it became known that a film was going to be made based on a thread of tweets. It's probably much better than it was any right to be in truth, all things considered, but the filmmakers made it work and deserve credit for that - and also for the astutely chosen short run time, too. The acting talent bring noteworthy performances, with particularly Taylour Paige and also Riley Keough putting in the work. Colman Domingo is also good - I already like that guy from TV's 'Fear the Walking Dead', so it's always a pleasure to see him act elsewhere. Recommended.

Good story, good cast. It's enjoyable. 'Antlers' sets the right tone throughout and delivers in serving up a satisfactorily creepy flick. Keri Russell, Jesse Plemons and youngster Jeremy T. Thomas all give strong performances, they make for an interesting trifecta to watch - even if they aren't as fully fleshed out ss they could've been. The horror aspects are done really well, as expected with Guillermo del Toro involved behind the scenes along with director Scott Cooper & Co. I also love films that make the locations come alive, where the place feels lived in and gritty, and this passes that particularly test with flying colours in my eyes. As usual with the genre, a follow-up is seemingly set at the end - which I'd be up for, sure, though do feel like this being a one-and-done would fit better - but we'll see.

A truly sensational film! The utter definition of a must-watch. 'Everything Everywhere All at Once' is impressive from every single viewpoint. I had heard murmurs of it being a great film, yet it still managed to completely smash my expectations. This 2022 release features a superb cast, a fascinating story and some top notch visuals. The editing and pacing, in particular, are brilliant. The onscreen talent are all fantastic, but Michelle Yeoh is still the absolute standout from this. What a performance! I could watch her in this role over and over and over. With that said, Ke Huy Quan (welcome back!) is awesome as well, as are Stephanie Hsu, James Hong and Jamie Lee Curtis. Everyone plays their part very, very well. All of the humour lands, with some parts being truly funny. It also manages to show supremely enjoyable action alongside a highly meaningful side too. In short: EEAAO is outstanding - you must see it if you get the opportunity! Raccacoonie

An absolute blast! 'Nobody' is a supremely entertaining action flick. Most of it actually feels fairly usual for a film of this sort, yet the way everything is presented is great! The pacing is perfection, the musical choices are fully on point and then you also have strong cast performances. Bob Odenkirk is of course (rightly) super acclaimed for that role as a certain lawyer elsewhere, so it's nice to see him doing other things. He is superb in this from beginning to end. Aleksei Serebryakov also gives a good performance, as also seen in television's 'McMafia'. Christopher Lloyd and RZA are fun, too. The action is top notch, especially the fight stuff, and the humour - whilst not in your face - is noteworthy as well. It all comes together to make a fantastic 90 minutes that truly fly by. Gimme 'Nobody 2'.

Meh again. 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore' isn't any worse than the two films it follows, which is a minor positive at least. I'd actually put it above 1 but just below 2, though I'm splitting hairs really. I just feel all three are simply missing that little something extra, yet I'm not sure exactly what. I also feel the same about the cast as I do for the preceding instalments, with the likes of Eddie Redmayne and Jude Law not doing much for me; though Law is at his best in the role here. I will say, however, that I did mildly enjoy Jessica Williams' performance. The pacing is a tad iffy, if nothing super slow. The ending does feel delayed, I would've personally cut a decent chunk of it to be honest. The dialogue and humour is average, but one scene involving Pickett and Teddy did make me laugh in fairness. All in all, I'm undoubtedly underwhelmed by these spin-offs/prequels to the great 'Harry Potter' franchise.

Better than its predecessor, even if I still didn't really dig it. 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' has more of a vibe about it, especially early on, and is marginally better paced. Overall, though, I'm kinda split on how I feel about this second instalment. It is a definite improvement, and yet I don't have any noteworthy positives to share about it. The cast, despite names I like, are just so forgettable to me in this. As such, I don't feel like I can give it any more than a 6/10 rating - which feels harsh, but 7/10 feels too high. With that said, I still plan to check out 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore'. It just needs that little extra oomph and these would be films that I'd enjoy, so hopefully that 2022 release will produce.

Remarkably lacklustre for a film involving magical creatures. 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' underwhelmed me, in short. At no moment across the 130 or so minute run time was I ever invested or drawn into the story or the characters. I didn't feel any good performances from the cast either. Dan Fogler sticks out in my memory most, though the rest are forgettable. The special effects are also not to the level I was expecting; that's not to say that they are bad and I'm not certain what I was indeed anticipating from them, but I just found 'em to be meh - nothing blew me away. Which is a vibe that I got from the whole film unfortunately. Hopefully 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' does more for me.

Insanely cheesy and overtly sentimental... yet, I kinda like 'While You Were Sleeping'. Sandra Bullock is probably the main reason for the latter, as she gives a near perfect performance for this sorta role. The rest of the cast are good too, from Bill Pullman to Peter Gallagher to Jason Bernard. The story is paced finely, it's really just the strong cheese that brings the rating down for me. Still: 7/10. It's the sixth Jon Turteltaub film that I've seen: I'd class each one as good. Reliable director!

Kathryn Newton deserved better. 'Freaky' is largely a (very) mixed bag, but Newton's performance is honestly superb - which makes it difficult to rate. On the one hand you have a fairly run-of-the-mill slasher, yet on the other Newton's showing is of such quality that it belongs in something far greater. She's top notch here, it's just severely unfortunate the film is nowhere near her level at all. There are a few decent slasher-y moments and Vince Vaughn tries. Speaking of Vaughn, it's neat to see a different side to him as an actor but I found him to be 50/50 in this; he kills it (pardon the pun) in some parts, but in others it's clear he's trying to impersonate a teenage girl - which is the complete opposite to Newton, who plays two characters supremely well. I know I'm repeating myself, but... in layman's terms: Newton good, film bad.

That'll do. 'Pig' is a good film, made very good by its conclusion - which threw me, to be honest. I wasn't, up until that moment, overly invested in the story, but when the reality hits home I actually felt my stomach sink for Nicolas Cage's Robin - unexpected! Cage does put in a neat display, I enjoyed his performance throughout. Alex Wolff and Adam Arkin add positive bits in their respective roles, too. It's a 2021 flick that is well paced, well shot and well told. Recommended.

Excellent! It's not quite 'Bridge of Spies', but 'The Courier' is too an awesome MI6/CIA/KGB infused flick. The two films tell tales regarding the Cold War, with the 2015 release narrowly a notch above this. Both have outstanding lead performances though. Benedict Cumberbatch is magnificent throughout, especially towards the end - the bald look suits him incredibly well, I must say... need him in a drug kingpin sorta role looking like that! In all seriousness though, I think this is my favourite Cumberbatch performance (from what I've seen thus far) - utterly brilliant! Merab Ninidze (also in BoS, albeit minorly) also puts in a top display, as he does in television's 'McMafia'. Jessie Buckley also gives a performance of note, which says a lot about her acting abilities given she doesn't feature all that heavily. Astutely paced, builds terrific tension and features some cracking acting. Fantastic film!

Very poor, despite the presence of John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson. 'Cell' is basically 'Land of the Dead' without the proper zombies, at least that's what this 2016 flick kept reminding me of. That George A. Romero film is good, this Tod Williams release is not. It's a mess throughout and lacks any tension, freshness or uniqueness. Cusack and Jackson should be a good pairing, yet I don't even recall anything from their respective performances just minutes after watching. Both are capable of a lot better than this, especially Jackson. No-one sticks out behind that duo, though it's neat to see 'Prison Break' actor Stacy Keach involved. One to avoid, I'd say.

I didn't enjoy is as much as I thought I would, but 'Fargo' is still very good and something I'd obviously recommend. I like the cast here, even if it is a bit of a Frances McDormand carryjob to be honest - she is terrific all the way through, absolutely nailing the role. Steve Buscemi is the star away from McDormand, while I've seen a few glimpses of William H. Macy elsewhere but this is his best showing that I've watched thus far. Peter Stormare is good too. It's an entertaining story, that's for certain! Around 98 minutes was a wise run time call, also. I didn't get that extra little something from it, yet it's a film that I'd more than happily rewatch - largely thanks to McDormand, and Buscemi.

Big fan of Jeffrey Dean Morgan, but this isn't a good film. 'The Postcard Killings' should be full to the brim with vigour and vitality as the plot involves a mystery that takes the characters across Europe. Unfortunately, it's extremely dull from start to finish. It's not anything necessarily terrible, it's just the uneventful feel to things hampers this 2020 release hard. Morgan gives a solid performance, though I kinda wanted more from him - at times he kinda felt miscast, if I'm honest. I'm not fully sure if that's the case or not though. The support cast are fine if forgettable, the minor standout behind Morgan is Naomi Battrick; who I recall seeing in a few early episodes of television show 'Jamestown', which I found to be equally as uninteresting as this. This needed a quicker pace and more action, without that it's a disappointment.

Utterly superb! I wasn't expecting such greatness. 'The Dressmaker', to put it bluntly, is quality! It has a pulse and then some, I love the feel of the film throughout - with all its quirkiness, silliness and straight up brilliantness. It all starts off very strongly, though I did then feel a (very minor) plateau. However, to my surprise, it shoots straight back up as it culminates with a super ending. Kate Winslet is top notch from beginning to end with an excellent performance, though isn't alone as the support cast all give very good performances - from Judy Davis to Hugo Weaving. I also note Liam Hemsworth, Alison Whyte and, at a certain point, Geneviève Lemon. What a great film, full of twists n turns and it has a fantastic score. Loved it!

'Fresh' is very good - strong performances and perfectly chosen music are the main reasons for that. I wouldn't say it's perfect, just because I don't think it nails the split between humour and seriousness but apart from that it's a terrifically made film. Daisy Edgar-Jones and Sebastian Stan give excellent showings, while the music throughout is top notch. It's nicely paced and has an interesting story. Definitely one I'd recommend.