wornoutspines

The film sounds like a plot that you've heard before but it embrases it and works. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was a bit of a surprise for me because I didn't expect it to be as good. The pace of the movie is slow but it's oddly captivating. It doesn't get boring or drop at any point, the film is funny, sexy, and witty. The innuendos in the dialogues are brilliant and priceless, some of them are so subtle that they could go unnoticed. The movie obviously has a James Bond feel to it but it's much more relaxed and simple, while still being fun and entertaining to watch. The cast and Guy Ritchie's brand of directing is probably what makes it work. By @wornoutspines

I heard the rumors and read the reviews about this film but it only made me want to see it for myself. I know, I’m a bit of a masochist. Turns out Fox’s new Fantastic Four is incredibly frustrating. The movie had a lot of things going for it. The cast is incredible, they might not have been the ones I would have pictures in these roles, but they are still talented and interesting actors. The way they approached the characters and their relationships was also interesting and it sort of made sense to me. The fact that they were all outsiders in their own way, them being wickedly smart and kind of awkward was an idea that I could have lived with. There’s also the “scaryish” elements in the movie that I liked. It felt like they were monsters, they were strange, and all of these ideas were potentially good ones but the execution was botched. The pace was so F-ing slow for two third of the movie, and once there’s a little bit of action it ends. At times it was obvious that some scenes were cut short, some bits of dialogues annoyed the hell out me. Fox had all of the right ingredients to make an awesome movie but they sorely missed. If we look at the bright, among other things, you can use this movie showcase the importance of editing. @wornoutspines

Tina Fey’s character Portia is very interesting, her life is monotonous and predictable, she’s the opposite of her mom, who is brilliantly played by Lily Tomlin. Portia is almost obsessed by the idea of not turning into her free spirited mother, so she has one of those boring, perfectly controlled life, and it made for an interesting journey when everything started to crumble. The movie is not as predictive as I expected it to be. It’s not the best movie ever but it has its charms, and feels very realistic at times. Obviously with Tina Fey and Paul Rudd there is some comic relief but giving the premise it would have been foolish to expect a full on comedy - that would have been a mistake - so the movie is a little bit of both a drama and a comedy with some romance thrown into it. It has a British feel to it but giving that it’s an American film it seems a bit off. Admission is a quirky little film with a lot of charms and a British flair about it. I enjoyed it. @wornoutspines

The simplicity behind the story is almost laughable, it’s been done, and it’s déjà-vu but The Great Gatsby plays its cards right. It’s starts with the execution, the directing, the photography and the acting is impressive. You can see Baz Luhrmann’s stamp throughout the film, it’s colorful, loud, and a bit in your face but it works because it fits Nick (Tobey Maguire)’s point of view. Nick’s the one telling the story, so the excess, the sensory overload, the overwhelming aspect of the fast life of the roaring 20s New York is exactly how a guy like Nick would experience it. The director knows music and how to use it, and did an interesting job with it. The music of the past and the present are intertwined and it works. The familiarity of the present song are there but the 1920s beats takes you back and deeper into that lavish world. The film is in its core a human story, with romance, drama, and a hint of mystery. The direction captures the themes and morals of the story really well but the actors’ performances bring it home. Tobey Maguire’s voice over and performance is nuanced, he’s an observer and a participant at the same time in the film. Leonardo DiCaprio is at the peak of his powers, in full command of his acting abilities, he’s brilliant in this film. Joel Edgerton, Elizabeth Debicki, and Isla Fisher should be mentioned because they were very good. Carey Mulligan is the one I wasn’t completely sold on the first time around - she looked too young - but watching it again I get it and understand how she could have been cast in this film. The Great Gatsby is entertaining and quite captivating, Baz Luhrmann knows how to shoot grand epic love stories. Written by @wornoutspines

I remember how I loved The Bourne Identity when it first came out, the plot, the action, I thought everything was great about this film was riveting but then I saw it again and I dozed off for a little bit. The film doesn’t really holds up today but weirdly enough the plot and the action is style good. The fight scenes and the stunts are still impressive today but the sound effects are kinda bad, it actually put me off of the fight scenes this time around. How come punches sounded like that in movies back then? And how the hell was I ok with it? It took me out of the story and I struggled to get back in it. As distracting as the sound effects are in the film, The Bourne Identity has a good cast, Matt Damon is amazing in that role, completely belivable as this amnesiac dude who knows all of these thing. The story is simple but efficient as are the action scenes. It has a James Bondsy flavor, that is if James Bond was on a budget, which gives a gritty, realistic feel to the movie. The Bourne Identity has its quirks but it’s a rather entertaining film. by @wornoutspines

It was one of the surprise hit of this spring, a surprise? I’m not sure so sure. From the day I saw the first footage I knew that this Lee Toland Krieger directed film had the potential to be special. The cast among which Harrison Ford, Kathy Baker, Ellen Burstyn & Michiel Huisman helped in raising the bar of the level of acting to be expected. I know didn’t mention Blake Lively but if I’m honest her name did little to peak my interest in this film. Despite the fact that The Age of Adaline sounds like a syrupy romantic movie, it has its charms. The film is a straight up romance but it has all these interesting elements, such as the fantasy of eternal youth, the “science” behind her condition, but also the philosophical questions this movie conjures up that makes it a good cinematic experience. The film is so subtle and measured that the story is easy to believe and get into. Blake Lively may not have been a draw for me but she did a hell of good job in portraying the young-looking old woman that is Adaline. Ellen Burstyn & Harrison Ford were, as expected, totally convincing in their roles. I bought their relationship to Adaline in the film, I did not question it I just reveled in the beauty of their performances. Michiel Huisman is steadily coming up in this world and this another performance that will bring him on step closer to become the A-lister he could be. The story and the performances in the film made it a remarkable film but cinematography & the production design really helped the movie. It gave the movie a timeless aspect, as if it was made a few years back while looking fresh and brand new. It was subtle yet noticeable, in other word they did an amazing job. The Age of Adaline is more than your average romance, it makes you dream, question but more importantly it entertains. By @wornoutspines

When I first saw this film I didn't even know it was a Philip K. **** short story. The movie came out almost 12 years ago but it didn't seem so far off until I realized I didn't remember why he’s being chased. I remembered some of the action scenes and the mystery solving so in my mind it looked more like an action than sci-fi movie. The plot is basically centered around the action, the car chases, gunshots, and explosions - not at a Michael Bay level - but still a very action-centered movie. It made the characters looks quite one-dimensional It's funny how this futuristic sci-fi movie is a bit off. I mean the movie doesn't really hold up today. It's still a good science fiction - I meant action - story and I enjoyed watching it, maybe even more now that I recognize all of the supporting cast, but parts of the movie looked...fake I guess, or like it was made in the 80s instead of the 00s. Paycheck was awesome when I saw it as a kid, it’s still a pleasant movie to watch but it’s definitely not a film for a nitpicking audience. @wornoutspines

Jurassic Park starts off with a glimpse of the danger the dinosaur represents then introduces the characters and the park. The park is first showcased as potential visitors would discover it, they see the dinosaurs, then learn how they're made, before everything start to go awry. The film plays with our fears of the unseen because in a good portion of it we don’t actually see the scary dinosaurs being scary. We hear them, we know they are lurking off camera but we don’t actually see them. It’s such a good build up that when we see “the monsters” it’s scary. My heart was racing like the little child I was when I first saw it. The suspense is one of the things that get you, even more than the few jump scares the movie has. Watching Jurassic Park now made me realize how smart the plot is. lt plays on concerns people would have if this park was really about to open. Some characters only have dollar signs in their eyes and others see it as something incredible that can turn deadly, which it does but it doesn’t take away from the fact that it could be wonderful. The special effects in this film look as good now as they were when the movie first came out. My guess is that they used a lot of practical effects, animatronics and great camera shots to make us believe that these dinosaurs are real. It thought me that even the most incredible things can be dangerous. Jurassic Park is such a good movie, it was for a long time the closest thing to an horror movie that I could watch. The film is great fun and very much enjoyable now. @wornoutspines

Oh my God, how did my parents ever let me watch this film? I know I blocked most of it from my memory but watching it again revived the sheer fear I felt when I was younger. Anthony Hopkins is so creepy that just the look of him and his speech make me shiver. I can't believe what goes on in that film, no wonder that I blocked out most of it. Anthony Hopkins has such a presence in this film that he stays with you even when he’s not in the scene. He’s in your head the whole time but when you think of it he’s barely in the movie, he just has a few scenes that’s how powerful his performance is. The film is so smartly shot, they chose a petite actress, that can easily look frail, and they used some wide shots from above to show how small she is around the Men, and shows how small and inexperience she must feel around them. Jodie Foster played her character with sensitivity and a quiet strength that also elevated the film. The Silence of the Lambs is over 20 years old but it holds up, you’re drawn to this suspenseful thriller from the beginning to the end, and then it stays with you. @wornoutspines

I liked how it was all set up, we get to know Ben (Jeremy Irvine) at first but what we actually get to know about him is what he has to live for. As for Madec (Michael Douglas) we quickly what he has to lose and the same time we get a glimpse of what kind of man he is before the hunting trip takes a turns for the worst. Beyond The Reach wasn't what I expected, I saw Madec as a hell of a lot more twisted then he actually is in the film. He is the villain of the story but his motives are understandable. I'm not condoning what he did, it just kinda makes sense. The circumstances put them into this situation, when I was hoping that Madec would have instigated it. The make up job on Jeremy Irvine is flawless, it looked really good, too bad that the story wasn't as carefully crafted as the sunburn make up Irvine had. The ending was a bit of a disappointment and the movie could have had a little more tension but I enjoyed it none the less.@wornoutspines

Same recipe, a big mess is made at the beginning and then it's the road to redemption. Pitch Perfect 2 is not as subtle as the first one, I mean pretty much everything was heightened, Rebel Wilson had more jokes, the weird characters are even weirder. The film was so so weird, at one point I was asking myself if I outgrew Pitch Perfect. Seriously I couldn't believe what I was seeing because it was quite a step down from the first one, which I still like. I find a few things to like in the movie, Anna Kendrick's storyline was quite interesting, it was actually one of the few that showed some sort of evolution of her character. The others were basically a spoof version of themselves - that's saying a lot because Pitch Perfect 2 is a comedy after all. The music was catchy, really OK for the most part, and the battle scene was arguably the best one in the movie, more so than the finale performance. The finale was kinda sweet but that's all it was. Anyway the movie was a bit of a mess, funny at times but a disappointment for me, it barely gets a passing grade. @wornoutspines

Wild has a really intriguing premise, the idea of a solo hike does it for me but I was wary that the movie lasted over 100min. What could possibly be entertaining about a women hiking alone from the Mexican border to the Canadian Border? As it turns out quite a lot. At first, it’s hard to understand Cheryl, she definitely does not strike you as a someone who could do this. She bit off more than she can shew, it’s clearly naive of her. But as Cheryl is struggling on her hike flashbacks of her life before the Pacific Crest Trails are peppered throughout the movie and like anyone you’re getting to know she starts to make sense. You get to understand what she’s been through, who she is, and what motivated her to do this. It’s a challenge that she brought on herself for herself, something she needed. And just like that a 115 minutes passes, during which you were taken on physical and soul searching journey with amazing landscapes, and a flawed but strong woman. Reese Witherspoon carries that film beautifully, she layered her performance with sensibility and a quiet strength that suited the character. I didn’t totally relate to Cheryl but I wasn’t completely impervious to her ordeal, I also have dreams and life-goals to achieve. On a side note, it was recently pointed out to me I had never seen Wild as the female lead version of Into The Wild. I’ve never finished Sean Penn & Emile Hirsh’s hiking movie but from what I remember Into The Wild was much more wild and raw the dude wasn’t on a hiking trail but in the wilderness. These two movies only compare in the drives these two characters have to undertake their journey. Wild is a beautiful movie about personal growth and living in one’s truth. @wornoutspines

I was first exposed to Dear White People by its trailer. The trailer was so promising it put the movie to a much higher level of expectation than it actually is so it could have only been a slight disappoint. The film is smart, punchy, and funny, for a film about racism and racial tensions. The preppy college setting screams for an amazing story about racial tensions and racism. The black characters that the film follows - Coco the girl who wants to be white, Lionel the awkward gay guy that doesn't quite fit in, Troy who fits in but isn’t quite himself, and the infamous Sam who is basically a modern day activist with a secret boyfriend - are actually good archetypes of nowadays college educated black people because they are all unique if not for the color of their skin. With this basis Simien delivered an interesting film about racial tensions between blacks and whites without shaming or blaming one of the two parties involved. But the film sort of feels like a fluff piece that didn’t really dive deep into the subject. The white characters are mostly stereotypical, they are the same to be honest, arrogant, and entitled. The film quickly becomes more about about finding one’s identity and western society in general than racial tensions. Maybe, that’s the point, one of the message behind it is that racial tensions stems from the way our society is, with whites liking the black cultures but not its people? I don’t really know but at least Dear White People is a good conversation starter. As for the actors, I mean the ones with layers to their characters, they gave a stellar performance. Tessa Thompson portrayed a riveting Sam with talent, wit and insolence. And Tyler James Williams was probably the easiest character to relate to, he likes what he likes and doesn’t try to change who he is. For a first film Dear White People is interesting and if the trailer hadn’t been so good I probably would have been in awe after watching it. @wornoutspines

Avengers: Age of Ultron is action packed we jump right into the action, it’s thrilling, exciting, and more importantly much more layered than I thought it would be. We all know these characters but what happened here is that we get to see them. Who they are and how they are when they’re not protecting/avenging something. The first movie was basically the meet-up, "the first day at school" but now they all know each other, they've been working together for some time and you can feel and see it in this movie. Age of Ultron goes deeper with the relationship between the Avengers, and it goes deeper into the characters’ personlities. Black Widow's back story is definitely the most interesting one, it gave her an emotional layer that she didn't really have. It made me feel like we finally got a glimpse of who she is deep down - who Barton knows her to be. Speaking of Barton, he is in Age of Ultron what Hulk was in The Avengers. He kind of steal the show, he has some funny scenes, and through him Whedon addresses most of the criticism made to The Avengers and particularly to the ones about Hawkeye. It is almost like Clint Barton is pulling a Deadpool on us by breaking the fourth wall because he is very aware of how his character was treated in the first movie and how his weapon of choice might not be the best for a battle against robots. He’s maybe not addressing the audience directly but he might as well. In contrast to Barton, Hulk was actually like I expected him to be in the first film, slightly tortured, complex, and not completely comfortable with what he is. I’ll admit it doesn't perfectly add up to the Hulk we’ve previously seen but I chucked it up to Banner having battle fatigue. As for his romance with Natasha, Widow made me buy into in once she explained why she liked him. As vilains go, Ultron was a worthy one. He was smart, sarcastic, and has a child-like innocence in his ruthlessness. Some might like Loki a little bit more but to me it’s due to the fact that we’ve got to know Loki in a few films over the years, and it’s jealousy that fuels him something we can all relate to and that Ultron does not have. As for Baron Von Strucker was window dressing in the movie - not that I was expecting a lot more of him - his real purpose was to introduce the twins in the end-credit scene in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Whatever you may thing about their East Europeans accents Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver were pretty cool. They’re powerful, they’re new, and at the same time you could feel them striving for more so they quite seamlessly joined the team. They were avengers from the beginning, they had something to avenge from the start. One of the good things with Avengers: Age of Ultron is that from start to finish the story is easily followed and we can already see the ramification the events in the film will have but the interest stays intact. Age of Ultron is definitely less Disney. It’s darker, more serious, and adult but children can obviously enjoy as well that what the comic relieves are for. What took it up a notch was the danger factor, there’s a death in the film - a real one I hope. @wornoutspines

Child 44 has an intriguing plot and takes place in such an interesting era in soviet history. The film's not very straight forward because they really set it up, the era, the back stories, the relationship between the characters are all set up before they hit the ground running with the selling point of story. So you sort of know your characters - who they are, how they see themselves, and how other people see them - when you get in the thick of it. The set up in Child 44 makes for a lot of tense relationships and subplots in the film that only adds to the realistic feel of the situation. The sheer fear, paranoia, and despair is palpable. The cast did a great job as to giving us an insight of what’s going on in these character’s heads. There is a lot more going on than just the investigation, Agent Leo Demidov (Tom Hardy) has all these hurdles that he has to overcome to reach his goal, to potentially catch this serial killer. As interesting as the investigation is, the relationship between the characters is as captivating, but Raissa (Noomi Rapace) and Leo’s is quite the unconventional love story. A great attention to details was put in the film but I gotta say, the contacts on some of the actors looked cheap as hell and sort of threw me off whenever I looked at them. And as good as I think the movie is, there is no doubt in my mind that the book is infinitely better because the film lacks a certain finesse that experiencing a book has. Child 44 is a dark thriller with an intriguing and riveting plot with great dramatic tension. @wornoutspines

The host - the book - was the very first book that I stop reading after three chapters, I gave up because I thought it was tedious and boring. It's also the reason why I have this rule, whenever I pick up I read up to three or four chapters and if by then I'm not not hook or interested in the story I put it down. So when the host - the movie - came out in 2013 the only thing that got me interested was Saoirse Ronan. At the time, I remember thinking "What the F*ck is she doing in that movie?" but she was in it, so I gave it a shot, putting all of my preconceived ideas about it aside. Once I saw it, I was pleasantly surprised, the plot was far more interesting that I gave it credit for. I was not sure where it stemmed from but when I realized that it was The Truman Show, Lord of War, The Terminal Andrew Niccol behind The Host I got the idea. The movie is intriguing, engaging, and quite riveting, it's a lot less cheesy than what I expected, actually less than what the marketing suggested. The Host is smart with good action sequences and another stunning performance by Saoirse Ronan. The acting is probably the other thing that makes this movie a better one. Ronan is completely badass in The Host because she manages to show you two different characters in that one film. They have the same body and same voice but there is not doubt that it is two characters on screen. Her co-stars Jake Abel, Max Irons, Diane Kruger, Frances Fisher & William Hurt are holding their own. The Host is a well rounded movie, So I wonder what went wrong? My guess is a bit of timing and marketing faux-pas. The movie came out in the wake of Twilight fatigue, which was not a smart move, and it was Marketed as another cheesy love story when we already had five years of cheesy Edward & Bella love story. And also let's face it the pace was a little slow but I don't think that hurt the movie. Andrew Niccol's take on The Host was intriguing, sophisticated and entertaining. @wornoutspines

Ryan Gosling’s first rodeo at the Writer/Director’s chair was something. The dramatic mystery-fantasy ride that Gosling is taking us on is enchanting but also disturbing. Lost River first looks like a documentary or an old film but it gets weird real fast. The documentary aspect of it comes from the debt crisis theme the movie has, people choking with debts leaving their homes, deserted neighborhoods and ghost towns but the film goes from a very grounded theme into a phantasmagorical world filled with disturbing dark metaphors with violent and/or dodgy characters. The music is hypnotic and fits the surrealism atmosphere of the film but it gets annoying real fast. Although it mostly fits the movie, there’s almost too much of it, the music is not really helping in the cinematic experience of Lost River. No matter how you may feel about the movie you can't deny that it's beautifully acted. Ryan Gosling knows how to pick his cast but the one I was most surprised about, was Iain De Caestecker, whose presence and performance was electric. Iain is impressive, from the second he appears on screen everything you need to know about his character is there, you can read it on his face, his attitude and hear it in his voice. He held his own next to Hendricks and Ronan, as it turns out he is incredibly talented. I know Lost River must be - is - a metaphor but god I need help to figure it out. I may not be doing enough drugs to understand that film or I haven’t experience enough of life but it was difficult for me to decipher. A short version of the film would have been fine, great even, but a full feature film, wow that’s something. Lost River is an experience, like any ride in an amusement park it will leave its mark but it doesn’t mean that you’ll enjoy it. @wornoutspines

The movie started with short history of the Boov's adventures to find a home, which basically is the short film released a few years ago, but the film itself is different from what the marketing made it out to be. From the trailers and the short film, I thought that Oh (Jim Parsons) was running from his fellow Boov - which he is - after making one too many mistakes and landed on Earth while he was running away from them, causing all the Boov to come to Earth because they were looking for him but that’s not the case. The movie went in a complete different route, either the studio changed the story-line at the last minute or I saw another movie because the trailers was for an alternate movie not the one I saw. So the movie was confusing for a little while but it doesn’t change the fact that the Oh and Tip grow on you, the little Boov Oh, like his counterparts, is quirky, a bit silly, and sometimes funny. The Boovs may not be as funny but they are as endearing as the Minions. Home is solely destined for kids though, the jokes and gags are aimed to please them, and after a few minutes you know exactly where the story is going. The message “accepting people for who they are” may not be original but for a kids’ movie it’s never a bad idea to remind them that being different is OK. Home is fun to watch and could be a nice afternoon trip to the movie theaters with your young kids, nieces and nephews. @wornoutspines

At first, I was not necessarily convinced that a Cinderella live action film would be interesting but Kenneth Branagh at the director's chair & Cate Blanchett as the stepmother made me rethink my position. The project became less of a silly little film with these two on board. Cinderella was a beautiful film, very tasteful, colorful, touching and classy. It's a very different Cinderella but it had the spirit of the animated film. The stepmother, Cinderella herself, and the prince were different, they had more substance, they multidimensional and that’s mostly true for the stepmother and the prince. They are not filling up space, they were more than just window dressing the Cinderella show. The stepmother made more sense, you could actually understand how she came to be that **** in Ella’s life. The prince is no longer a pretty boy whose name no one bothers to mention, he’s a character with hopes and dreams, and sliver of personality to make him interesting. They even played off the fact that a girl confined to the attic, who likes talking to animals is a bit weird - cute weird but weird still -, which made the movie feel real while managing to keep the magic and the wonder intact. The ensemble cast really elevated the film, they embodied the characters we came to know and love but portrayed them in quite a unique way. @wornoutspines

Matthew Vaughn’s adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s novel of the same name was my introduction to his directorial genius. At the time, the story, the ensemble cast including Charlie Cox, Claire Danes, Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Mark Strong & the narration by Ian McKellen blew my mind. But I was also impressed by how it was directed. I mentioned being blown away by the ensemble cast because when i first watched **** it was dubbed in French - yes I’m fluent in Molière’s language. I fell in love with the movie then but once I saw it in English I realized the nuances that were lost to me in the French version. For example, I had always assumed - despite the story partly taking place in the UK - that all of the actors were speaking in an american accent - I know, I can be stupid sometimes. So it was weird to hear British accents, coming out of Danes’ & Pfeiffer’s mouths. The fairy tale epic has everything we came to expect in a Vaughn movie, an awesome storytelling, great cynical jokes intertwined with a captivating adventure. **** is surprising and incredibly entertaining, as the story unfolds you dive into big new fantasy world that manages to feel very intimate. The film gets so riveting that it’s a good escape, a relaxing movie that helps to take your mind off of your problems. The cast is just amazing, the acting is good, and it feels like each and every part - big or small - was written for a specific actor that would give the part what it needs to shine when on screen. For example, Peter O’toole’s part is small but memorable, Robert De Niro’s character is so much fun and not as cliché as I thought he’d be. He’s probably one of the most surprising character in the film. Watching the movie now is even more impressive because so much of the people cast in it are big stars now e.g. Henry Cavill. So it’s an added bonus to watch the film these days and notice these then unknown actors who helped make the **** experience magical. **** is not perfect but it works, you can’t really hate it even if fairy tale, fantasy movies are not your thing. @wornoutspines

Surprisingly enough Pitch Perfect is based on a book, shocking I know, and a non-fiction at that - WTF? - I can’t imagine reading a book about collegiate a Cappella groups much less watching a movie about it. The Pitch Perfect plot has every single textbook cliché to make the film a lot worse than what it is but they were smart enough to use them well. Although, there’s a boy who meets a girl it’s not all about the romance, there’s a group who is clearly the underdog but it’s not a pity party, and there’s a type of good guys against bad guys situation but it’s downplayed to the point that they are hardly any bad guys in the film. So what’s left? The music, the competition, the camaraderie, and slightly stereotypical but strong women characters. Add in a dash of over the top comedy and it kinda works. Pitch Perfect does not take itself too seriously, it’s entertaining with good one-liners and some bad ones. It’s weird to say but the movie has personality, those quirky characters are easy to like and even if you know where it is heading - because it’s that predictable - it is still an enjoyable movie. @wornoutspines

Still Life is a surprising little film brought to us by writer-Directer Uberto Pasolini, it was shot in 2013 and finally made its way to me and I'm glad that I decide to see it. The film depicts the life and work of John May (Eddie Marsan) a council worker looking for the living relatives of those found dead and alone. I know, it sounds fun, but trust me this film is much more than what it seem. At the first, it looks like it's about death and funerals, which it is, but it's in no way depressing, it's more a tale of life, love, and the afterlife. Still Life is quirky and exotic in its unusualness. John May is a bit weird, socially awkward, and very much feel out of touch with the modern world but he's also a sweet and caring man, who is meticulous at his job easily making the people he interacts with seem even sweater, or worse depending on how they behave around him. Despite its heavy themes Still Life has moments of relief, it's funny at times and gets uplifting. It's a movie that sneaks up on you to reach into your heart. Eddie Marsan gives a quiet but poignant performance in this film, I was drawn to his authentic portrayal of John May, a compassionate character you can't help but love. Uberto Pasolini delivered a thought-provoking film with limited camera, letting the story take a life of its own. Still Life is a thoughtful little film shining a light on a peculiar job but also on human relationships, the people we knew and lost touch with, those who sometimes are forgotten and need to be remembered. @wornoutspines

According to the book and the marketing of this film it's all based on a true story, I honestly don’t really care because that was not a selling point for me, what attracted me to the film is the cast. I know Jason Statham doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to the quality of the movies he stars in but when add Dominic Purcell, Clive Owen, and the great Robert De Niro, to me it’s worth the shot. Killer Elite, did not live up to the expectation such a cast would inspire. They establish a quick connection between the men in the beginning then dive right into the story. It's kinda set up like a heist movie, for which you desperately want them to succeed, even though they're not stealing anything but are killing people. The film does have action sequences and a nice opening scene but then it falls flat and gets boring for a while. The story is weak and repetitive and the cast does nothing to elevate it. Statham barely shines in the action scenes, Owen is so bland in his portrayal of a trained killer, Dominic Purcell sporting an English accent is weird but if only he looked confident doing it he wouldn’t have made a joke of himself, and De Niro is hardly in the movie. The only redeeming quality Killer Elite has is the historical & geopolitical aspect behind the story. Killer Elite was a disappointment for me, it was barely entertaining and ran too long (120min). @wornoutspines

Divergent - the first book - was interesting but the first movie was even better, way better if you ask me. They managed to cast great actors and make a realistic futuristic movie. Despite having a different director Insurgent looks familiar I easily slipped back into a world I was already familiar with. The movie is visually impressive, even though it looks a bit too CGI-ish for my taste, making the film not as grounded as Divergent was so at times it feels like watching a video game or an animated version of it. The acting is OK, I mean it's a good cast so what they bring to the table fits the story and the emotional journey these characters have been through. But - because of course there is one - Theo James' (Four) age is seriously starting to show. I know he's only 30 - and Teller is 28 - but in the first movie it didn't seem as weird that he's with Tris (Woodley) but next to 46 years old Naomi Watts, who looks 35, maybe forty, it's really weird. They look like brothers and sisters at best, they could have aged Watts or cast someone else completely because how young was she when she had him? 12? It will be even weirder to see her playing opposite Ray Stevenson (Marcus Eaton) - Four’s dad - who'll look like a dirty old man next to her, which is probably why we’ll see very little of that. I wish these aspects of the film were the only ones I had a problem with but on top of all of that Insurgent lacks rhythm. It's missing the slow, intense build up in which the tension and the action grows to an entertaining climax but it never doesn't. Don’t get me wrong it is action-packed, a rich adventure of a film but whenever the tension builds up it quickly dies down to go back up again at some point and that's how it is throughout the movie. It comes and goes in waves but never rides on the high the previous action scenes gave you. Although, it's faithful to the book Insurgent was a bit of a disappointment I expected better. It’s only slightly more entertaining than the book, they could have done better. @wornoutspines

If you haven’t read up on the story or don’t know the name Gary Webb, the title of the movie, the premise, and Jeremy Renner’s name might lead you to think that you’re in for a Jason Borne style action thriller but it’s not. Kill the Messenger is a biopic but one that centers on a particular point of Gary Webb’s (Renner) life and like most biopics it has its moments. The backdrop of the story is smoothly set up through clips and newspaper articles that gives you a broad context of the story you’re walking into. The contextual elements are there but the movie focuses on the man, Gary Webb. You get to know him through his work and family before you dive into the story that will forever change his life. It's a slow built up, the tension rises with every piece of information he uncovers but at the same time you can feel this dark cloud looming on the edges and instinctively know that it's all going to crumble. Yes, there’s tension and an undeniable gut feeling that it won’t be all sunshine and unicorns at the end but the way done makes it bearable. The movie could have more exciting sensationalizing everything but Kill the Messenger is character driven, it's Gary Webb's point of view, and Gary is a reporter so the film just lays down the facts as a reporter would. Therefore when everything crumbles the only perspective you get is Gary's. You can see repercussions his investigative journalism had on his life, with constant contextual hints showing how his article affected everybody else, how it blew up. Renner’s character and his story takes center stage in the simplest matter of fact way possible and the cast does a great job of infusing life to it. Jeremy Renner is spot on as the investigative journalist that get consumed by his article. The rest of the cast is just as believable in showing how hard it was in the mid-90s to put to light a controversial issues. Kill the Messenger really is a tribute film to Gary Webb, it tells his side of the story and walks you through what he went through and by the end you’re left to decide what you want to believe, leaving you to dig for information yourself. @wornoutspines

I saw Foxcatcher months ago, I went to see it with very little idea of what it was about, I knew that it was based on a tragic true story and stared Steve Carell, Channing Tatum & Mark Ruffalo, other than that I knew nothing more and that's how it should be if you want to see this film. Once I saw the movie I was baffled, it is undeniable that the performances are brilliant, the three leads brought their A game. It's a very psychological film, which means you should see it rested and ready to think, you have to pay attention to the nuances and the progression of the characters. It's not delivered on a silver platter, as a matter of fact it's a very solemn film, very simple with no tricks. I recognize that the performances are mind-blowing, the story is very interesting but boy I was bored. There are a lot of long silences, I mean long, it works for the psychological drama that it is and I get that it helps set up the tone and pace but it’s slightly too much for me. The same goes for the cold, bleak, chilling atmosphere, it suits the movie well and makes total sense but I was not into it. Foxcatcher has all of the right quality ingredients for such a story but maybe, just maybe there are slightly too much of the quality stuff. It also definitely did not help that I wanted to pee the whole time but I did not have the amazing experience most people seem to have had.

The Cobbler is not one of Adam Sandler's over the top, poorly acted and incredibly bad comedies, it's more of a fantasy drama with a comedic tone. I am a big fan of Reign Over Me, I only have great things to say about that film, and every time that I see a drama with Adam Sandler's name stamped on it, I still rush to see it. The Cobbler has a good premise, and they've paired the interesting premise with nice trailer but what a f***ing let down. The film has a big, no, huge, pace problem, it's slooowww and as depressing and dull as Max Simkin (Adam Sandler) is the movie. I understand that Max Simkin is not enjoying is life at the beginning of the movie and that is fine. But he stays that way the whole way through, which in this case kills any comedic attempt, in fact the trailer was funnier than the movie was. Adam Sandler, despite the fact that he is the front man, is not the problem of this film. His performance is decent although it could have been better, it is OK. The guy can be good, he recently showed it in Men, Women, and Children. The same could be said for cast in general, even the worst of them could not have made this movie worse. The story and the execution seems to be the real problems. Storywise The Cobbler is all over the place and does not have consistence or an homogeneous identity. The Cobbler sounds like a fairy-tale, a fable kind of movie, because it looks light and fun. And it actually starts off that way but then the tone, the pace, and the story turns it into something completely different. I am so disappointed that I'm going to stop now, I'm too annoyed. @wornoutspines

The DUFF is quite entertaining and has a really nice poignant message. The film captures life, I mean the characters, and I'm mostly refering to Wesley (Robbie Amell) and Bianca (Mae Whitman), are realistic, humanized. I got a weird sense that I was watching people I knew and not a stereotypical film version of them. The movie has that documentary feel to it and it's due to how the leads portrayed their characters and how easy it is to relate to them. The only real disappointment I have with the movie is that I thought it would be funnier. It's still a comedy but it's a little more serious than I expected. Watching the trailer I thought that I would laugh a hell of a lot more, specially when you look at the established comedic cast in it. Whitman and Amell do have good comedic timing and The DUFF is fairly funny but the quality of the jokes are not as high as I hopped they would be. The story is intelligent, insightful, and kind of funny but it's still very predictable. The DUFF is on the edge of being great but it’s not. @wornoutspines

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a weird little - it’s a 2 hours and half - film. The subject is intriguing enough to get you to watch it but you stay because it’s simply captivating. I was so invested in the story that I cried several times while watching it. The film is touching and heartwarming, and also subtle. It seamlessly breezes through times and really brings to life what the tagline is about “Life isn’t measured in minutes but in moments.” The film does go through Benjamin Button’s life and really shows every step, moments, that defined who he is. The movie is very much grounded in reality which makes the fantasy elements of the story real. You quickly believe that a boy born old but with the mind of baby is possible. So the magic is there, grounded in the reality of Benjamin’s life. I don’t know who to accredit this to but it’s very clear, palpable, that when Benjamin is growing up, looking like a man in his nineties his youthful energy shines through. Brad Pitt, being the title character is just stunning in this film. He helps make the weird aspects of the film OK. The same goes for Taraji P. Henson, she makes the old wrinkled baby the most normal thing, she brought the dramatic gut wrenching emotions of a mother’s love in all her scenes. They all have their moments Julia Ormond, Tilda Swinton and Cate Blanchett all bring another layer, another moment in Benjamin’s life. Blanchett evokes the undeniable question of love, and a lasting one as that. Benjamin’s condition raises a valid question about age and love, which is interestingly dealt with in the film. More than a riveting story with great acting, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a technical prowess. The make up, the cinematography, and the special effects are mind-blowing Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett look older and then younger and it’s done beautifully. The darkness and lighting in David Fincher’s style of film making really compliments the story but more so the technicality of the film. He was the perfect director for and did an amazing job throughout. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a wonderful film about time, life, and love. It’s another David Fincher masterpiece that is timeless. @wornoutspines

The Will Smith redemption movie, Focus, was a bit of a step up from After Earth. He could honestly only go up following After Earth. Focus is a better movie than I anticipated, actually that's a lie. Despite the cast my expectations were low, so I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't much of a stinker. The movie is entertaining, the story is somewhat interesting, but - of course there is a but - it could have been much better. My main problem with Focus is that I wasn't engaged in the story, it wasn't because it's poorly written, it's not. I walked into the movie theater knowing that it was about con-artists - the marketing never hid it, if you've seen the trailer you know this. Anyway, knowing that it was about con artists and the tagline is “Never loose Focus” I never really let my guard down and I didn't let myself believe what I was seeing. I was busy trying to figure out what the con was before it happened and that's where the movie kind of disappoint. They did not play on the fact that the audience may be looking for clues as to what is going on. There are no real clues for the audience to find, there are very little things for you to think back on and say "That's right I saw that." They either show how it or explain it once it already happened. So if you're like me, looking for bread crumbs for you to figure out the con Focus hardly leaves any. I only got **** into one scene and totally believed what they fed me for a little while. But much later when the big twist came I wasn't shock or surprised. I probably would have had a better experience of the film if there were hidden clues leading up to the cons or if there was one character, who wasn't a con artist, that I could have trusted allowing me to let my guard down and get conned. The leads, Will Smith and Margot Robbie, work well on screen. Will Smith is not his usual happy, upbeat, self in this movie but it suits the character. As for Margot Robbie, she plays the sex symbol cliché well without letting herself get trapped by it. She's more than a dumb, interchangeable pin up, she showed it in The Wolf Of Wall Street and also in interviews you quickly get that she knows how and when to wield the power than she has. She's talented and it shows in the movie. Focus is a decent movie, it lacks refinement but it’s entertaining, Smith is slowly getting back on top after the stinker that After Earth was.

I watched the Oscars and other award shows so when The Descendants got all these accolades it peaked my interest but I never got around to watch the film. I now have, and let me tell you I was not particularly impressed, I didn't connect with the movie. But watching it I understood that people would easily connect with The Descendants. I mean, if you've been through or going through something similar this movie could really move you, and touch you like Still Alice did for me this year. So while part of me does not really understand why George Clooney scored an Oscar nomination for this - I'd have to check out who the other contenders were but I don't care that much - I have to admit that it is a decent film. It's simple, doesn't take itself too seriously, and a bit raw. The characters are easy to relate, in some way, they're kind of stripped down and feel like regular people going through some though times. Like I said, I couldn't really relate to the film because so far I've been lucky enough not to have lost anyone close to me. I know, I'm lucky I am and I do feel like I'll experience this movie very differently when I eventually go power through a big loss. Don't get me wrong, I'm not waiting for a tragedy to watch this movie again. All I'm saying is that The Descendants as everything to faithfully depict the aftermath of a tragedy, the frustration, the emotions, the humor, and the relief.

A minute after the trailer for The Voices started I wanted to see the film. So I was waiting for it to premiere in Paris. I hoped that more of the cast would come but I was glad to see Marjane Satrapi. I know Reynolds is shooting Deadpool so he gets a pass, as for Aterton I know she has her musical but London is a mere two hour train ride away she could have made an effort. Anyway, Satrapi quickly spoke about how the movie came about. Persepolis and her Oscar nomination for it changed her life. Her American agent offered a lot of projects that she wasn't feeling but to me it sounds like they sort of put her in a box. But The Voices was different and refreshing from what she had dine so far, so she went for it and in my opinion it was a good decision. The movie is hilarious, quirky and very entertaining. The Voices could be a mix between Dexter and a good comedy. It's charming and pulls you into the madness with a wicked sense of humor. The director did an amazing job in delivering a good horrish comedy. I expected the comedy but I was surprised by how dark and depressing the movie gets. The focus shifts between reality and fantasy, which makes for very colorful shots that lightens the mood. Bosco, the dog, and Mr. Whiskers, the cat, are just gems. They are the movie's representation of the devil and the angel appearing over a cartoon character's shoulders. They simply steal the movie, that's how funny they are. So The Voices is colorful and dark at the same time. It gets real but it's fun. It has a very serious mental illness at the center of it but there are a lot of hilarious twists that gives a unique look at Schizophrenia. Ryan Reynolds is amazing as the sweet-faced, socially awkward Jerry. He gave an amazing performance in this film in all of his roles, because he has several in this movie, he's really good. He showed a nice range in his acting ability. The cast in general elevated the movie. Gemma Aterton, Anna Kendrick, Jacki Weaver were all great in the movie, they each brought something to the table and made the experience worthwhile. @wornoutspines

I expected this movie to be an overly romanticized sugar coated version of Jane and Stephen Hawking That's probably the reason why I didn't rush to the theater to see the film. Although, it's tastefully done, the story is does not shy away from the difficulty they faced. The Theory of Everything seamlessly shows their life, the personal side of thing, and it's no romantic comedy. The film tells a great deal of what this brilliant man and his wife had to endure. Jane married this genius man, on borrowed time, planning to cherish the little time they had but in time found herself with a husband, whose slowly crumbling body, demands a lot of her. Stephen, this brilliant young man, who had a bright future in front of him, found himself faced with a hurdle he can't possibly overcome and only live with. Their story is beautifully told, fascinating but also cruel. The Theory of Everything is subtle and clever. Like I said, it's not an overly sugar-coated and romanticized story of Stephen and Jane Hawking. They are portrayed as strong and determined people but they're also flawed, which makes them human and very likable. I was touched all the way through, immersed into the story and into their lives, but I did not pity them I admired them. The immersion into the story is wonderfully accompanied by the score. It gives an extra layer to such a beautiful story. The cast is just superb, Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones really deserve the nominations and awards they got because they carried the movie. Redmayne was incredible and once you fathom the amount of work and details that went into this performance, you realize how impressive Eddie Redmayne's performance is. Felicity Jones, though, is the cherry on top the movie wouldn't have been as good without her in it. She's sweet and incredibly good as Jane Hawking her eyes speak for themselves in the movie. She's brilliant. As Biopics go, The Theory of Everything is a great one among the many we had this year with Unbroken, and The Imitation Game, or Selma. When the story's great and you have a very talented cast, the director is often overlooked James March did a stellar job. I now understand what all the fuss is about. The Theory of everything as a great script, talented cast, is believable and touching. @wornoutspines

Jumper is a decent movie, I might be a little bias because I've always liked this movie. The premise alone sounds amazing, the way its set up, how the characters are introduced, the action sequences, and the special effects are simply good. The film has elements of a superhero movie but is - more so than actual superhero movies these days - grounded in reality. There are very few futuristic looking gadgets, the locations and the weapons are all realistic, making the Jumpers feel like a secret part of society that could actually exist. The characters in Jumpers seem like regular people. Millie (Rachel Bilson) acts and reacts like a normal girl whose not a comic book fan or someone who doesn't entertain the idea that teleportation is possibility. Griffin (Jamie Bell) is a bit a **** and David Rice (Hayden Christensen) doesn't even seem to realize what's happening to him, he lives in his bubble and doing his own thing - like most people would in his case. The film does have its faults and for me there two main problems: The first, I've never read the book but from what I understand in the movie, a Jumper can withstand a large amount of electricity - higher than normal people do. But some of the hits David got in the action sequences should have killed him if he's physically like any human, which seem to be the case and would have been a great weakness to have for the character, a regular guy who can teleport. The second problems is the ending of the film, it's not the best, I could have come up with something better. Anyway, I liked Jumper when it came out, even though I always knew that there wouldn't be a sequel. It's an entertaining movie and over the years, whenever I watched it back I found those little pop culture references that I hadn't notice before. For example this time around I noticed a Marvel Team up reference that is kind of overused but is still cool.

I don't like how this movie makes me feel, it reminds me of a time when I was in a similar situation. Not that it opened old wounds but I had that knot in my stomach watching Alex and Rosie being idiots. As movie goes, I guess it means that they've done something right. I was emotionally involved in the movie, I guess we've all been in this kind of mess, and that's probably the reason why Love, Rosie kind of works. The film takes us back to a place where we don't really want to go because no matter how weak the script seem to be - the life span could have been better handled - I still connected with the film. image Lily Collins and Sam Claflin have an amazing chemistry on screen, which does not take long to be established in the movie. Their chemistry is there and the audience's history with this kind of complicated relationships is what makes the movie. Collins' performance was better than I expect but she did not look like a mom, not at all, by the end she looked like the Katie's sister. The same goes for Claflin, who blew my mind in The Riot Club, he gave a great performance but he looked the same, it's even hard to believe that time had passed if not for Katie growing up. Love, Rosie is a good film, it's easy to connect to it, a very nice romantic comedy. @wornoutspines

Some movies are easy to talk about but Paddington is not one of them. There's not much to say about this movie. As surprising as this may sound the Michael Bond books adaptation is a hard one to grasp. I want to say what my experience of the movie was like but it's hard for me to do so but I'll try. I am probably not the target audience for Paddington but the three foot six bear has something extremely appealing about him. Paddington is charming, respectful and funny. I couldn't help but have a smile on my face when he was on screen. The little C.G.I Bear is so lovable that he feels very much alive. Thanks to the seamless special effects, the good live acting from the cast, and the great job Ben Whishaw did voice acting that character - as if I needed another reason to admire this actor. The movie is endearing and warms your heart, it has this classical witty British humour that adults will responds to and children will enjoy. It's also a smart movie with a positive message, acceptance. Watching Paddington feels very much like reading book, I mean each sequences has a beginning and an end, it feels a like turning the page of a book each page a little more amazing than the next. Paddington will surprise you and put a smile on your face, it embodies the family film genre very well. @wornoutspines

The plot might not be the most original plot of the year, with the promising street kid as the underdog and the twisted tech genius as the baddy, but it's a Matthew Vaughn movie. Quantity wise Vaughn's films might not be much - even though directing five movies in 10 years is impressive in my book - but the quality of his films speak for themselves. Kingsman: The Secret Service is no exception to the rule, it's thrilling, fun, and has that Matthew Vaughn touch written all over it. He made a movie using extremes and opposites. It's classy with a bit of filth in it, funny but also serious, a real treat. It's a well made, nicely paced adrenaline rush of an action film that has a James bond movies flair. They modernized the spy genre and mixed with a drop of comedy. The action scenes are amazing, beautiful to watch well choreographed and fun. As violent as it may be, Kingsman wasn't gruesome or tiresome despite the massive body count. The actors did a great job, Colin Firth as an action star is badass and awesome, Mark Strong is surprising, Jackson is an interesting villain, and Taron Egerton is smooth in this role. But I am commanding Matthew Vaughn for his work, because this somewhat cliché plot feel original, it's done in such a unique way. Matthew Vaughn - and his team - took everything we've seen, again and again, but added a twist. So every time there was a cliché, something we expected, there was a little twist and that made it not quite what was anticipated. It kept us on our toes and made the movie a good roller coaster ride. Fun fact, one of Colin Firth's aliases in the movie is DeVere Vaughn's real name. @wornoutspines

I never wanted to read the books but I saw the movie. Fifty Shades of Grey is Twilight, without the religious crap, sorry to say but the relationships in Twilight didn't feel genuine or plausible - supernatural aspects aside - and thank goodness she doesn't wait four books to put out. The film is sensual, not sexual even thought there are boobs, bushes, and **** in it. It's a BDSM love story that reeks of teenage drama and desperation but it's still fun to watch, what does that say about? Sam Taylor-Johnson delivered a tasteful movie despite the dicey subject. Fifty Shades is well shot, the cinematography is beautiful and luminescent - sorry about that word - literally bringing to light BDSM practices. She suggested sex without showing it, to be honest she showed quite a bit. But once again, the movie is sensual and not arousing - at least, it didn't arouse me. Taylor-Johnson also got some pretty surprising performances out of her actors. Jaime Dornan and Dakota Johnson were surprisingly very good. Jamie Dornan is exceedingly good in this role, not that he is a bad actor, but I wasn't sure he could pull it off. He does though, he plays mysterious and domination well, and also clearly shows how Christian Grey loves the crack the whip. Dakota Johnson as the young and innocent Bella, I mean Anastasia is brilliant, she probably would have been a better Bella than Kristen Stewart - sorry but it's kind of true. I hope Dakota Johnson had a hell of a pay day out of this movie because however tasteful it is, she's naked a lot in this film. Chessy dialogues and unnecessary inuendos aside, Fifty Shades of Grey is not that bad. @wornoutspines

It begins like a poorly executed romantic movie, too fast and a little messy. Then when we get to the thick of it, the heart of the story and Eric Lomax's history starts to make sense a little bit, but again it's executed poorly. The photography is good, the actors gave a decent performance, so it must be the script or the director. Since the film is based on a true story, it's a shame that there's such a lack of emotional involvement. It's not as gruesome as it could have been for movie War movie, the torture is kept to a minimum, so they could have pull on the audience's heart strings and play on the emotion card more. I needed to care, to feel for Eric Lomax but I never really did. As I mentioned the cast gave a decent performance, they were good maybe not great but they were sensitive and raw. Jeremy Irvine is unrecognizable in this film but it feels like he was barely there. Kidman is graceful and reeks of devotion while Firth wears his heart on his sleeve for the audience and Sanada is just sort of impressive. Although the film did not work for me, I recognized that Eric Lomax's story is inspiring but the movie failed to help me connected with his amazing story. I feel this is a hit or miss situation depending on who you are. @wornoutspines

The trailer for Wild Card is very misleading, the film is not just a revenge movie staring Martial Art expert, ass-kicking, lethal weapon Jason Statham. It's actually surprising, well though-out, and more about Nick Wild's character than mindless fight scenes. Well, the problem might not just be the trailer. There are a lot of side stories in this one film, the stories give you context, a get better sense of who Nick Wild (Statham) is, but in this case it's a little bit much. Because if you pick any of the side stories and make trailer of it, you'll have a completely different film, which is why the movie feels like a draft, jumbled, messy. I am aware that I'm saying this about a film written by an academy award winning screenwriter but that's how it is. In way it reflects Nick Wild's state of mind and where he's at in his life. The deeper you get into the movie the more layers you find and realize what he's struggling with but as the movie start to scratch the surface it ends. I like Wild Card for one thing because it shown Jason Statham in a new light. He talks as much as he fights in this film and if you like Statham throwing fits and handling knives you'll be pleasantly surprise to him talk. Wild Card is a better movie than I expected, don't get me wrong it's not movie of the year, but it's kind of good and entertaining. @wornoutspines

It took me a couple days after watching the film to start writing this review. I didn't know why it took me so long but since I generally don't rush these things it didn't worry me. Writing a review I always try to be original, use my own words, share my own opinion, and try to make memorable with a couple of paragraphs. The Imitation Game is an interesting film with a great cast and brilliant performances but I'll get into that later. Watching the film the narrative jumped out at me and I couldn't pin point why. It starts off with the declaration of war and progressively goes back and forth from 1945 to the 1950s with little flashbacks on Alan Turing's boyhood peppering the narrative. No matter the time periods the constant in all this is Turing, it is his story after all. I guess, I didn't understand why the story was told that way. I mean it's a compelling story, so to me the flash-forwards to the 1950s - his post WWII life - are almost obsolete. The boyhood aspect of the flashbacks were important and interesting because they helped understand how complex Alan Turing was and gave him depth, as for the flash-forwards I had no clue. Of course, the movie would have felt a bit boring without the flash-forwards but it wouldn't have hurt it. Then it occurred to me that without them the British Government looks seriously bad. The man saved 14 Millions of lives - like they've reminded us in the film - but they still prosecuted him for consensual homosexual sex, sorry I meant "public indecency". I am baffled by this, I am no LGBT activist but injustice still rattles me. Maybe more so because if this war Hero's "kink" was little girls, I get the sense that he, somehow, would have eluded prosecution. And that investigator, who looks consumed by shame and guilt, once he realized what he's done, does not shake my belief that things would have gone differently for Turing if it was anything other than homosexuality. I may have gotten too far with this but you get my point. As for the movie, it has all the cultural aspects of this era, by which I mean misogyny and homophobia, no seriously it's also funny, riddled with humor like most British movies are and it is because of Cumberbatch's portrayal of Turing. The loner, introverted, socially awkward genius makes for comedy gold. Turing's interactions with people around him and their reactions to his "uniqueness" made me laugh throughout the film. This might sound like Sherlock, also brilliantly portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch, but I did not once felt like he was playing the same character although, I'll admit that the two are alike. Which brings me to the immense talent that Cumberbatch showed in The Imitation Game, he not only portrayed a similar character to the one that internationally brought him to **** but he did it with enough flair and finesse to give Alan Turing a voice and singularity. Unlike some biopic about great men, the supporting cast in The Imitation Game was strong and memorable, they all had their moments that gave them layers and also elevated the film. Among those people, is Keira Knightley, on who I had lost hope a long time ago, she showed skills and cunning in this movie for a character that easily could have felt flat and forgettable. She's borderline **** hag but with a good script and some acting skills she did well. The same skills - why do I feel like it's an insult to them? - are shown by the talented Charles Dance, Matthew Goode, Mark Strong, Allen Leech, Matthew Beard & of course Alex Lawther. Morten Tyldum delivered a culturally relevant, fun dramatic film. This man knows how to get you emotionally involved and takes you smoothly through one of the great injustice of our time.

I thought I was the musicals loving kind but turns out I'm not. I could barely sit through Les Misérables and the only reason I sat through Into The Woods was its comedic aspects. It was almost a parody at times, they didn't seem to be taking themselves too seriously, so it was funny. Not laughing out loud funny but it put a smile on my face. There is a wonderful combination of all the famous fairy-tales in one story. They've incorporated the drama, the comedy of these tales, and obviously added a music into the new story. They've humanized our fairy tales characters, adding a little more edge to them, making the story is somewhat interesting but not enough for me to be invested in it. Although the singing was good - I'm talking quality here - I wasn't blown away by the songs, I didn't once want to sing along and I can't remember a particular song I like, except maybe the Merryl Streep one from the trailer. It's a nice ensemble of a cast, they've picked the right people for the right roles. Depp is right in his wheelhouse but he's not on long enough to be annoying. Streep struggled to get me on board with her character but by the end I was in. James Corden & Emily Blunt are a lovely pair, they were great together and Blunt really impressed me - mostly because her and musicals, I mean singing, didn't ring true - she was good and really stood out for me. One last thing about the cast, I liked Pines in the movie ONLY because he delivered my favorite quote from the film "I was praised to be charming, not sincere." @wornoutspines

Predestination just blew my mind. I didn't really know what to expect when I watched the film, since I wasn't familiar with the Robert A. Heinlein's source material. The trailers were good but a little weak and now that I've seen the movie I understand why. Predestination is smart. Every piece of the puzzle is perfectly laid out so that the story pulls you in slowly, keeping your mind in sort of lazer sharp focus because it's a time-travel movie and usually that's what you need to understand these movies. But in this case that is exactly what will get you fooled. From start to finish, I was so into the story that the craziest of possibilities escaped me. I ate everything they fed me and was left dumbfounded once the story unfolded. I am doing my best not to spoil because the movie is an experience that I would encourage anyone to have. Predestination surpasses expectations and carefully untangles a knotted storyline that will slowly start to take all of its tragic, dramatic sense. Everything makes sense, it all ties together and the same thing goes for the cast, Ethan Hawke, Sarah Snook, and Noah Taylor are amazing. Each of them bring something specific to the table, creating this tight knit story that left me reevaluating everything I saw once an untangled knot in the storyline took its meaning. Sarah Snook & Ethan Hawke's performances brought real emotional weight to the characters they're playing. Particularly, Sarah Snook whose character could have drag this movie down the drain if she wasn't utterly convincing. The sci-fi aspects aside Predestination also touches so many current subjects and could be interpreted and/or seen in so many ways. The story becomes about Jane's emotional journey and her transition into a man and throughout life. There is also something to be said about loving and accepting yourself in the movie but I can't go too deep into that without spoilers. Peter and Michael Spierig delivered a methodical, almost anal retentive film. It's intense, a bit contrite but it's a good film. Predestination is a great take on time travel and fate. A thought-provoking film with an entertaining and complex storyline lead by a great cast. @wornoutspines