s3ver14n

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Not many surprises but a decent movie nevertheless, with good acting, tense moments, and a solid plot. Hugh Grant transitions a little too smoothly from the nice old guy next door to a memorable monster and the protagonists work well, without being the usual cannon fodder you find in horror movies.

The Accountant was an okay movie that introduced some interesting ideas, but as others have noted it's sequel seems to flatten it all out into a buddy action movie while retaining a very simple nod and plot point to neuro diversity. It's not awful and has some good moments that make it worth watching on a subscription you already have. I would like to add that the line dancing bit was excruciating - I don't have anything like the characteristics of the lead character, but even with minor traits, masking etc any kind of pattern complexity in a dance would not be remotely engaging enough to get me on a dance floor with other people - I'm not saying it isn't possible but it does feel like a ridiculous way to try to "humanise" Rainman as "dancing Rainman" when both concepts are fiction.

Unexpectedly enjoyable, light weight crime caper comedy. The three leads do a great job carrying an acceptable plot - it's worth watching just to see how good Bryce Dallas Howard is in a non-Hollywood role - IMO this is the best role I've seen her play and she really is excellent in it. Orlando Bloom clearly has great fun with his role, while it does feel to me like Nick Mohammed was slightly let down by the script, relatively to the others - he's much funnier than he was able to demonstrate and his character deserved much better development and a better follow up with other characters at the end (if you watch it, you'll know what I mean). But still, a it's a cracking little movie with much to enjoy.

Cena and Elba work well, bouncing of each other in this silly but really rather enjoyable comedy action movie. Priyanka Chopra is universally excellent and lends very slightly more credulity to the plot rather than having two world leaders suddenly become action heroes without some sort of competent backing and Paddy Considine is reliably great as a villain. Action and SFX are all perfectly acceptable with a handful of outstanding moments that are unique to this movie and Jack Quaid has a simply brilliant sequence mid-movie. It has to be said that John Cena is much better when he leans into deeper, darker roles such as Peacemaker, rather than re-treading the route taken by the Rock as he does in this movie, while, ironically, it's great to see Idris Elba flexing his credentials as an action hero in a change of pace from the brooding Luther (which is awesome) and a massive upgrade from the awful Beast.

Clever suspense thriller with plenty of twists; they do become more obvious towards the end, but that doesn't detract from the overall journey. Considering it's use of a single location for most of the movie, it's also beautifully filmed. The cast is universally very good, with excellent acting as always from Mark Rylance that really makes the lead character work in a believable way. It is a carefully considered movie, and will reward the viewer who takes the time to appreciate the atmosphere, the characters and the plot.

Great sequel, building and improving on its predecessor, without following the terrible tendency that other films and shows in the genre take by simply rinsing and repeating the same formula. The central protagonist, played by Daniel Craig, is much more developed and involved in the plot progression than he was in the first movie. There is also significantly more humour, that is more topical, highlighting the ridiculousness of a range of current real world and internet stereotypes - in particular the ribbing of self-identified "disruptors" is excellent. As noted, the movie starts by following the overly well trodden path of other murder mysteries and, thankfully, quickly diverges, bringing something a little different. The movie makes much of references to the glass onion of it's title; something that is in plain sight, whilst still being shrouded in layers. Ironically, I expect the reverse may be true for some viewers, unable to discern and appreciate the layers of subtlety when presented with an apparently superficial plot. It is hard to know how a future film in the series can address this; the lack of a sledgehammer denouement is literally what makes the films worth watching, but is also a significant challenge to being popular with part of the audience. Overall, a great film, well made and possessing a solid sense of humour. Look forward to the next episode.

It is too long, there is too much exposition for a Bond film, and although one or two of the action pieces are great, it does feel muted. Also, although there are nice musical cues from HMSS (and I guess the film to an extent re-tells the ending of HMSS in with a twist) the almost complete lack of the bond theme throughout really detracts. On more positive notes, it is a good conclusion to the Daniel Craig era, which has really told a single story linked across the films, rather than each standing alone. It's also nice to see the standard bond plot being shaken up, rather than repeating much the same story, which while entertaining has rather run it's course. Also, the use of a black actress to portray "007" through much of the movie is quite entertaining, and clearly a fun little dig at the more prejudice members of society. Overall, definitely worth watching despite some short comings. I would have scored a 6, but have added a couple of marks to help add some balance for those unfortunates who were upset about a black woman being 007, and clearly not spotting that the joke was on them.

So, straight out of the gate, this is an absolutely stunning looking movie. The fantasy locations are among the best I've ever seen. I love the Lord of The Rings Movies, but never entirely felt at home with the NZ locations - when I read the books they brimmed with feelings of the English countryside that I grew up in and, beautiful as it is, the NZ locations never felt totally right to me (but still a great substitute). By comparison the Irish locations used in this movie are simply stunning and feel much more in tune with the English Literature sources. Music and sound is stunning, especially the sound production. I've never paid much attention to sound production before, but one critic website pointed it out and they're quite right, it is simply amazing in this movie. The plot is a new twist on the legend, but it works very well and acting duties are delivered excellently without exception. My only gripe would be Vikander's accent as Essel - I felt she was aiming for some sort of UK accent, but haven't got a clue what it was meant to be. That's all irrelevant really because as 'the Lady' she delivers an absolutely stunning performance. And finally, casting. All excellent without exception, but particular kudos to Dev Patel, one of the finest actors of his generation delivering an amazing lead.

The basic premise of this movie is so simple; there is mole at the top of the 1970's British Secret Service. Or is there? Is it really a ploy by Soviet intelligence to destabilise the service? George Smiley, a retired agent is recruited to untangle a complex plot of deceit, bluffs, double bluffs, and betrayal amongst his former colleagues, all triggered by a mysterious soviet intelligence director. There is no doubt that this is deep stuff - the plot is complex, and you do have to submit to not being led by the nose through it; at points you have to simply accept scenes for what they are, without fully understanding them at the time. Mostly you can piece them back together in the last 30 minutes, but a second run through is great to fully complete the puzzle, and even then a few things are left to personal interpretation. After watching it, have a quick google about people's interpretations, especially of the final few scenes; fascinating stuff, especially when combined with people's knowledge of the TV series and book. That might put people off, but I hope it doesn't, the broad strokes of the plot are actually not hard to understand, but you do have to watch and think; it really is like a puzzle, and if you're concentrating, you can actually figure out who the mole is well before the end; it's entirely logical. The cinematography is great; yes it's super bleak, but as a child of the sixties I really feel like it feeds into the sense of paranoia that really existed about our relationship with the Soviet Union. Speaking of which, of course the most obvious aspect of the time is that we lived under the fear of "the bomb", but what isn't talked about so much is that we were at war with the Soviet Union and everyone knew it. Films and TV series of the time such as the Harry Palmer movies and indeed the TV version of Tinker Tailor were obviously fictional and dramatised, but they brought about a genre of gritty topical spy fiction that doesn't really exist in the cinema now, and this movie brings it back to modern audiences so incredibly well, providing they have the patience to engage with it. In summary, top stuff, engage brain, pay attention and you will be rewarded by this excellent, atmospheric, regeneration of 70's spy drama.

Heavily allegorical satire, with strangely contrasting approaches that are at one moment very subtle, and the next as subtle as a brick in the face. The brick approach is obviously the Trump like president, vacuous, interested in self importance and the aggrandisement of family. To be fair this is all true of the real world Trump, so any caricature is hardly going to be subtle. The flip side is a more subtle criticism of the nature of modern society and media. Some have assumed references towards climate change and/or the Covid pandemic, but to me the critique felt much broader, where the ridiculously elevated importance of celebrity triviality in social media and the competing, desperate drive of conventional media to remain relevant has become more important than reporting anything of use or value, or indeed the truth. Overall, despite some bumpy moments this was a hugely enjoyable film with an excellent social commentary and some very subtle humour. I've rated it higher than I would have (probably more like an 8) because, ironically, there are some who don't believe in censorship but will still apparently give silly scores to films whose message they consider too liberal.

D: The film's finished P: Cool, is at least as good as the first two? Oh, and what's the runtime? D: Yeah, it takes a bit of a different direction though, but you'll love it. P: That's great, how long is it? D: It has great SFX, we've switched from Independence Day to Stargate as a theme. Also crammed in all those Aliens references you wanted. P: Super. You seem to be avoiding questions about it's length though? D: How to you mean? P: You know, runtime, length, duration, how long does my bladder have to hold out since we don't have intervals now? D: Ah, well, it's a little over 3,600 seconds. P: You mean an hour? D: No, well, yeah, okay. It is. But it does everything it needs to. Honest. P: Dude, the third instalment has to be be the longest - we've really got to be pushing bladder control here! The studio demands it. D: Well, I've got nothing else.... P: How about we hire someone to direct a really high quality first half that won't feel like it's been crammed in at all? D: Yeah, cool. Can we keep the same dialog writer though? P: What, you mean the fella who wrote "There's no use fighting it", "Now I am become death", "We're not in Kansas anymore", "I have to finish this myself" and other such classics? D: Yeah, that's him! P: Okay, whatever. But what about that line "Between your serum and my ship we have enough power now to cure everyone."? D: What do you mean? P: So, how does Rose know about the Serum? D: Well, um, you know, she just does, she has alien super powers or magic or something.... P: And how does the doc know about Rose's ship? D: Well, err, again, ah, ok, okay, hmm... P: Look, never mind. Folk will love it anyway - it's proper action filled, disengage brain B-Movie fodder like the first two. D: We also have a load of outtakes in the end titles - does that help? P: Hell yes, why didn't you mention that before? We'll just get a temp to churn out the first half - an outtake reel fixes everything! D: what about the critics - what will they think? P: "There's no use fighting it" maybe? Oh, look, they'll probably think it's arty or something - we've got the acting legend James Cosmo in a staring role after all! D: Who?

A pleasant, life affirming movie with a positive message that originates from the source book and is continued in the campaign it spawned; Choose Kind. Acting in the movie is universally great - Owen Wilson plays Owen Wilson as always, and in this case it happens to fit rather well. Although the plot largely lacks surprises, the juxtaposition of the different points of view for some of the major characters, including overlapping some of the timelines of the story works very well, adding a bit of interest to an otherwise linear, albeit entertaining plot. This is simple, feel good popcorn movie fodder, with a message that is particularly needed in current times; "if you have a choice between being right and being kind, choose kind".

Reasonable action movie, good performances by all concerned. The premise is reasonable, but not original, just another Frankenstein; man vs his creation and the moral dilemma therein, although in this case the focus is switched to the future of humanity, rather than that of the monster. Unfortunately the plot sets this scenario up with so much potential to do something different from the traditional, binary choices of monster overcomes man or man overcomes monster, with all that these cliched outcomes imply, and then drops the ball in the final minutes, simply repeating so many dated works that have gone before; Monster = bad. Disappointing.

Terry Gilliam always delivers the film that he wants to make rather than something that is instantly appealing or even commercially viable. For each Time Bandits or Brazil there is a Brothers Grimm, but even his least successful productions are superior to the continuous stream of turgid super hero tie-ins and remakes that have filled cinemas in recent years. Parnassus has an excellent cast who act their socks off. It's hard to single any one of them out, although it is a pleasure to see Christopher Plummer centre stage, and the combination of the "Tony" actors (Ledger, Depp, Farrell, and Law) shine through. The plot is arguably a little simple, but with the way it weaves between imaginary worlds and fascinating characters this is probably for the best. And what richly painted worlds and characters they are, with the irony that the most fascinating element is the Imaginarium itself - a Victorian era anachronism touring the back streets of modern London. The special effects are truly special due to the level of art that has gone into them rather than just the capabilities of a team of programmers. Modern SFX have become such a continuous drive of "bigger and better with more pixels" that many directors have lost sight of the fact that they are meant to be "special". Look, a bigger explosion, with more colours! Or a bigger robot, a bigger spaceship, a bigger, more impossible car **** has reached a point where SFX have reached saturation - completely ridiculous things are now mundane. Parnassus SFX focus on the detail, the minutiae, the art. And much of it is big, but that's not what makes it clever. What makes if clever is the fact that Gilliam decided that a "magic" mirror just needed a piece of plastic with a hole cut in it. Sometimes it's knowing when not to.....

I've rated this film a 10, not because it deserves a 10, but becaue the average of 4.5 is ridiculous. It was always going to struggle. A remake of a well loved movie that doesn't lend itself to the dumb immediate payback of modern action movies - it was screwed from the start. Critised for not being the original movie and for not being modern and full of action, or an exact duplicate, it never stood a chance. Actually there are a lot of subtleties to the movie, and the new twist on the old twist is brilliantly delivered; for most of the movie I thought they'd forgotten the movie's name, and yet it turns out to be more poignant than in the original. Well worth watching if you have half a brain, but I suggest watching the orignal first. The makers of this film did, and it shows.