Reviews

Welcome to another edition of Adams Movie Reviews!!

**queue intro music**

Todays movie review is the romantic comedy How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003) starring the dazzling Kate Hudson who plays Andie a journalist for a women's magazine Composure and super chilled cool bloke Matthew McConaughey who plays Benjamin (Ben) an advertising executive. Both characters are at a point in their lives who want to either be taken seriously or score the biggest client in their professional career. For Andie she wants to write serious topical pieces whether it be geopolitical or sociopolitical and Ben wants to lead a project to land a massive diamond seller client. Andie's boss proposes to Andie to take on this specific assignment which will demonstrate her abilities as a writer and journalist - exploring the common mistakes that women make in relationships that lead to their partners breaking up with them. Ben on the other hand makes a bet with his boss and his colleagues who also want to lead the project to score the diamond client. The bet is that he can make any woman fall in love with him in 10 days. Both the bet and the assignment become a central plot point in the film, setting the stage for the comedic and romantic interactions between Andie and Ben.

The funny twist is that both characters are unaware of the others ulterior motives. The film follows the comedic and romantic journey as Andie tries to drive Ben away with her intentionally irritating behaviour, while Benjamin simultaneously works to win her heart. The story explores the challenges of love, miscommunication and the importance of authenticity in relationships.

Now this flick is super 2000s romcom, with the predictability levels on a high radar and providing us exaggerated scenarios whether it be playing poker night which is interrupted by Andie to the movie scene where Ben gets knocked out to even Ben driving his motorbike on Brooklyn Bridge to chase Andie at the end of the film. Due to the exaggeration of certain scenes this lead to characters exaggerating their performances for comedic effect including the main stars which lacked authenticity. Forced humour didn't ode well in the film which led to moments that may have come across as contrived.

The only memorable scene for me was both of the actors retreating at a family home and engaging in a card game called Bullshiz. The game is also known by other names like Cheat, I Doubt It, Bluff and other variations. In the movie, the characters use the game as a way to add humour, to get to know each other better and add tension to their interactions and it becomes a playful and competitive element in their developing relationship. The funny thing about the game is like a metaphor on the whole story of the movie.

The movie provides a decent typical romcom soundtrack including Somebody Like You by Keith Urban, Follow You Down by Gin Blossoms, Weight of the World by Chantal Kreviazuk and the actors themselves sing the song You're So Vain by Carly Simon.

The flick nicely navigates through the clichés of romantic comedies, embracing them with a self-awareness that adds to the overall charm along with providing situational humour including Andie trying to be annoying to Ben in order for Ben to leave Andie - for example the NBA playoffs where Andie requests a diet soft drink. While the plot may be somewhat predictable, the journey is enjoyable, overall 6/10.

Welcome to another edition of Adam's Reviews!!

**queue intro music**

Hapy New Year Everyone!!

Let's start off with a bang to the new year and chat about a classic flick Steel Magnolias (1989) heartwarming and poignant comedy-drama that delves into the lives of a group of Southern women who tight-knitted who frequent at a local beauty salon in a small town in Louisiana. The film beautifully captures the enduring strength and camaraderie among its characters, played by a stellar ensemble including Sally Field, Dolly Parton, Olympia Dukakis, Shirley MacLaine, Julia Roberts and Daryl Hannah. The movie is based on the 1987 play of the same name by Robert Harling who doing a quick search up, is based on his sister's life. The film's story skilfully weaves together moments of humour, love and sorrow as the women support each other through life's challenges. The film's emotional depth is heightened by its exploration of themes such as friendship, family and resilience. Massive shout out to the actors, from Sally Field and Julia Roberts deliver standout performances as a devoted mother and a daughter who just wants the greatest gift on earth. The relationship between mothers and daughters is a central theme, particularly in the context of Field's character M'Lynn and Robert's character as the daughter Shelby. The film explores the challenges and joys of motherhood, highlighting the sacrifices and deep love that define these relationships. This leads to other themes which the actors portray their characters' brilliantly that you as the movie goer acknowledge the transient nature of life and the inevitability of change. It confronts the characters with moments of joy and sorrow, underscoring the importance of cherishing the time spent with loved ones. Other stand outs include Olympia Dukakis and Shirley MacLaine who both brought comedic relief. Dukakis brought a delightful charm to the role, infusing her character Clairee with a blend of sophistication and genuine affection for her friends. Her comedic timing and delivery of witty lines added light-heartedness to the film. MacLaine's performance was memorable for its authenticity and depth. She captured Ouiser's complexity, balancing the character's rough exterior with moments of vulnerability and humanity . The combination of Dukakis's warmth and humour and MacLaine's sharpness and vulnerability made their characters integral to the film's success and their dynamic was the highlight of the film to me. The whole ensemble deal with serious issues they face in their lives by incorporating humour as a coping mechanism. The characters use wit and humour to navigate through challenging situations, which helps to balance out the emotional weight of the story. The memorable performances, engaging script and the exploration of themes such as friendship, love and loss contribute to the enduring appeal of Steel Magnolias. My only issue of the film is at the end, after a massive emotional depth from the hospital to the funeral and Field's acting was so raw, the notion of one must go on as life goes on along with the Easter Bunny and egg hunting threw me off. The ending felt like the film didn't fully delve into the emotional complexity of dealing with loss. The idea that life must go on can sometimes be interpreted as a glossing over of the grieving process, just like Field's character who seemed to move on forward relatively quickly after a significant loss. Overall 7.5/10.

Welcome back to another edition of Adam's Reviews!! **queue intro music**

Today's movie is the romantic comedy drama An Unmarried Woman (1978), a tale about Erica, played amazingly by the great late Jill Clayburgh, is a New York City, Upper East Side woman who seems to be doing all the right things in her life, an alright job, has a good group of friends and is happy with her married life with a young teenage daughter. This is until the day her husband of 16 years Martin, played superbly by Michael Murphy, announces he has been having an affair with another younger woman and leaves his wife and his daughter.

From the scene where the filmmaker pans out the glamorous Upper East Side and cuts to Erica and Martin jogging across the river where Martin has a hissy fit due to stepping on dogcrp and theorises that his wife somehow planned to have his step on dogcrap and changes his mood by asking a quickie with his wife, or being concerned with his health and is frustrated with his work just demonstrates how ungrateful he is. Whereas Erica is in awe of her life, from laughing at her daughter's remark on whether the "earth moved?" to dancing as the brilliant new talent in her debut to the ballet world in the ballet production Swan Lake.

Erica's world turns upside down due her husband's betrayal and realises that the man she came home to every night is not there and now feels alone due to the retcon of her routine life. Hurt and angered by her husband's betrayal, Erica slowly begins to re-evaluate her life and explore her newfound freedom. The filmmaker Paul Mazursky perfectly captures the themes of divorce, betrayal and the empowerment of a woman finding her identity after a failed marriage.

Jill Clayburgh's performance as Erica is pure raw emotion yet grounded as she acts different levels of vulnerability of a woman. One level is to desperately trying to roll with the punches whilst another level is to grieve her marriage and lastly the final level is gaining strength as Erica navigates the challenges of her divorce.

Clayburgh's nuanced portrayal allows the audience to empathize with Erica's pain, frustration, and eventual resilience. The film doesn't shy away from depicting the initial shock and heartbreak that often accompany betrayal and the dissolution of a marriage. Erica's journey becomes a universal story of self-discovery and empowerment in the face of profound betrayal. The movie delves into the raw emotions experienced by someone who trusted their partner completely, only to be left abandoned and heartbroken.

The portrayal of betrayal is poignant and realistic, capturing the intricacies of human relationships and the unforeseen challenges that can arise even in seemingly stable marriages. This can be demonstrated with Erica's friends commenting her husband's affair with one friend advising to hiring a divorce lawyer, another is advising on how not to completely end the marriage as Martin may come back whilst the final friend looks miserable probably contemplating on whether there is a marriage out there which can last forever. Each friends represents a spectrum of possible reactions of being suddenly "unmarried" in their thirties.

Erica's journey allows her to confront her own insecurities and reassess her sense of self-worth. At first, she shows anger and despise towards Martin, which gradually transitions towards all men. The film doesn't romanticize the pain of betrayal but instead portrays it with a raw authenticity that resonates with viewers. Erica undergoes a profound transformation, shedding her old identity as a wife and mother to embrace her individuality. The film celebrates her strength and resilience as she rebuilds her life, explores new relationships, and rediscovers her passions and desires. She explores her interests, talents, and desires, allowing herself to fully experience life as an individual. This process of self-exploration helps her regain her self-confidence, which may have been overshadowed during her marriage. Through her interactions with various people, including romantic interests and friends, she begins to understand her own worth beyond her roles as a wife and mother.

The pivotal moment are the scenes with Erica visiting her psychiatrist, which leads to Erica to enter the singles-bar jungle is also a walk through a minefield; however, the filmmaker Mazursky finds the right line, or tone, to end a difficult scene where the character Charlie played by Cliff Gorman, pelted with body hair, turns out to be the scenes correct solution with the correct line "Relax, the foot doctor's here."

Enter Saul Kaplan who is an artist Erica meets after her divorce is perhaps the trickiest act in the film. Mazursky uses the character as a way for Erica to understand her personal growth, her self-worth and self-discovery by refusing to go off to Vermont with Saul for the summer and rather give herself to one man, unwisely as it turned out, she will now keep permanent possession of herself. Smart move by Mazursky who uses this act as a way to allow Erica to keep her independence while shouldering as well the burden of his dependence on her.

Saul becomes a significant romantic interest in her life. Saul is understanding, caring, and appreciates Erica's newfound independence. Their relationship is marked by mutual respect and emotional intimacy, providing Erica with the support she needs during her healing process. Saul's character serves as a contrast to Erica's ex-husband and represents a healthier, more equal partnership.

These romantic relationships serve as a catalyst for Erica's personal growth and self-discovery. Through her interactions with these men, she learns more about herself, her desires, and her boundaries. Each relationship contributes to her understanding of what she truly wants and deserves in a partnership.

Overall, An Unmarried Woman is such a good film not because it states vast truths about men and women but because it finds that there are none. There are always levels of complexities amongst men and women and with this flick we see a woman who invites us viewers of her transformation which symbolizes her wllingness to embrace her needs and desires unapologetically after going through a divorce, 8/10.

Welcome back to another edition of Adam's Reviews!! **queue intro music**

Today's movie flick is the dystopian post-apocalyptic soft reboot of the Mad Max franchise - a bloody brutal Valhalla entry to the franchise, Mad Max: Fury Road (2015). Filmmaker George Miller returns to helm this flick and this time Max Rockatansky is played by Tom Hardy who barely utters a word in this film and when he does, I can barely understand him. Max is captured straight away in the film by the War Boys who are foot soldiers for dictator Immortan Joe, played by Hugh Keas-Byrne the alumni actor who played Toecutter, the main villain of the original Mad Max film. He is taken to the Citadel where we see more of this new world, where one's health and body information is tattooed on their back, see more of the pasty-skinned cult of the War Boys, a harem of women Joe keeps for himself to breed and controls possibly the only supply of fresh water left in what used to be Australia.

The film introduces a new character played by Charlize Theron, the one-armed Imperator Furiosa who is the warlord general for Joe and the main driver of Joe's powerful War Rig. Furiosa decides to betray her leader by secretly transporting the "Five Wives" away from their master Joe, something which the skull-mouthpiece wearing warlord cannot abide. Their destination is a green place where Furiosa grew up in.

Max in this film starts off with eating a lizard next to his Interceptor, alone as always, just contemplates the ghosts of his past and present. Soon his path crosses with Furiosa and things get more interesting. We have a man of action with few words, who seeks peace of mind following the loss he experienced in his past and Furiosa, a woman of action and a woman who believes her path to survival may be achieved if she can make it across the desert back to her childhood homeland.

Everything about Fury Road screams grandeur, from the heavy metal chase, even the ruthless violence where we can see Miller has invented a new world where darkness is an escape from the stream of clichés we might see in today's comic book movies and rather than have a recycled plot we are given time spent on furious speed chases that goes from end to end of Miller's world.

Tom Hardy is totally capable as the main hero, but the film's emotional core comes from Theron's character and you can see that Max and Furiosa keep each other's human sanity alive. This prompts them to survival, into carrying out their similar moral causes, clinging tightly to their only mission even if they get hurled into the barbaric hostilities of their dystopian society. Charlize Theron's portrayal of Furiosa in "Mad Max: Fury Road" is nothing short of phenomenal. She brings a captivating intensity and a fierce determination to the character that makes her one of the most memorable and powerful action heroines in recent cinematic history. Furiosa's character is a force of nature, and Theron's performance embodies that perfectly. Her physicality and presence on screen are commanding, and her emotional depth adds layers to the character that go beyond the typical action hero. Furiosa is a woman on a mission, driven by a deep sense of justice and a desire for redemption, and Theron conveys this with nuance and power.

This movie is a wild ride, where the action takes the front seat and character development is left in the dust. It's a turbocharged thrill, fueled by Junkie XL's heart-pounding score, mind-blowing production design, and a story that's so absurd it fits perfectly in the chaotic world of Mad Max. In this fantasy realm, where guys rock flamethrowing guitars and defy gravity in high-speed chases on pole-vaults, it's the new normal. The film never eases up on the gas pedal, and that's what makes the madness feel like everyday life, which is the true enchantment of this flick. It's the kind of movie that makes you willingly suspend disbelief because the quality of production is just that good.

As mentioned, Charlize Theron steals the show, with the titular character playing second fiddle. Max is haunted by his past, clearly scarred by visions of lost loved ones. In most movies, there'd be a solemn scene where Max recounts the tragic stories behind his guilt. But not in Mad Max. Why? Because we don't need that. We can connect with grief and suffering without a long backstory. Mad Max is all about raw, intense emotion. Words are secondary; the actors convey their motivations effortlessly without lengthy explanations or exhaustive history lessons. It's a high-octane emotional rollercoaster that'll leave you breathless.

The Warboys in "Mad Max: Fury Road" are a captivating and unforgettable element of the film's dystopian world. These white-painted, death-obsessed, and adrenaline-fueled warriors serve as the personal army of the film's antagonist, Immortan Joe. Their devotion to Immortan Joe and their willingness to sacrifice themselves in his service add a layer of complexity to the film's apocalyptic landscape. This can be demonstrated when a Warboy gets an arrow through his head and yet he stands up and throws himself on the enemie's vehicle to destroy it with explosives whilst yelling "Witness this!!", all while the other Warboys are cheering him to enter Valhalla. Their religious-like fervor and their reliance on the "V8" cult of the car make them intriguing and eerie at the same time.

A great scene is when Nux played by the mad Nicholas Hoult transitions from being an antagonist to an unexpected ally, first joining forces with Max to confront and incapacitate Furiosa then at the end when he sacrifices himself to save the girls, Furiosa and Max. The first fight is shows your different levels of each character where Max is driven by his instinct for survival, is forced to work alongside Nux, whose loyalty to Immortan Joe and Furiosa determined not to trust a man and ensure the girls are safe in their journey. The fight sequence is visually striking with the handfighting to using the chain locked onto Max, with the chaotic desert landscape serving as a breathtaking backdrop to the confrontation - just adds a different level to the scene.

The stunts are nothing short of breathtaking and stand as one of the film's most exceptional and defining features. The sheer audacity and creativity of the stunt work in this film are unparalleled where from start to finish, the movie is a relentless adrenaline rush, thanks in large part to the death-defying stunts that drive the narrative. The vehicular stunts are a sight to behold, with a vast array of modified and weaponized vehicles engaged in high-speed chases, flips, crashes, and epic collisions. The intricacy and scale of these stunts are awe-inspiring, and they are executed with precision and style.

This standalone reboot is a remarkable achievement in cinema, the performances, the stunts and the story itself elevate the film to a level of action brilliance rarely seen in modern movies. The final moments of Fury Road are a culmination of the film's relentless, high-octane journey and they deliver a deeply satisfying and thought-provoking conclusion. As a movie goer, I was taken on an electrifying ride, with chaos and mayhem at every turn, as the characters make their final stand in the post-apocalyptic wasteland. The stakes are as high as they can be, and the film does not hold back in delivering an epic and explosive showdown.

The film's themes of redemption, survival, and the human spirit are encapsulated in these closing scenes. The choices the characters make are profound, and they resonate with the audience long after the credits roll. The commitment to practical effects, the skill of the performers, and the integration of stunts into the storytelling all contribute to making this film into a true masterpiece of action cinema, overall 8.5/10.

Welcome back to another edition of Adam's Reviews!! **queue intro music**

Tonight's movie flick is the dystopian threequel, Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome (1985) which brings back filmmaker George Miller and the masterful Mel Gibson who for the fina time returns as Max Rockatansky, a man who is out in the desert with camels and a cart which may be his old V8 Interceptor in tow, his long hair sporting streaks of grey down his temples. This Max isn't the vengeful killer from the first film nor is he the scavenger Max from the second film. This Max is a merciful saviour of forgotten children.

After traveling across the desert barefoot to get a hold of his possessions, Max finds himself a pair of leather boots and a whistle and soon comes across Bartertown which is currently in the middle of a power struggle. One faction is Master Blaster, literally a version of Krang, where you have a guy with the brains latched onto another guy who is the muscle. Both these men are the framework of the town, who work underneath the town by looking after pigs and pig excrement which fuels the energy and supplies the gas. On the top side is Tina Turner's Aunt Entity who remains at the mercy of the subterranean world beneath Bartertown and wants to take power away from Master Blaster. Aunty Entity makes a deal with Max to take out Master Blaster however just at the very end of the deal, Max backs out of it and is banished to the wastelands where he encounters a group of children who view him as their saviour Captain Walker.

I will stay this from the get go, this film has the visuals of a Mad Max entry however it doesn't feel like one. The film is also either not connected to the second Road Warrior film which may confused movie goers. For instance, Max has his cart, camels and other possessions stolen from what looks like the Gyro Captain from the second film but in this film the character's is name Jebediah who clearly does not know Max and doesn't have the same quirks as he did in the previous entry. Which leads to whether this film is narrated by someone else, as in from their point of view which may make it look like that each Max film is indeed a legend and a mythological story.

The action is very tame and at times comedic, for instance when Max lays out all of his weapons in the beginning is more cartoonish then apocalyptic. The end chase scene is also too draining where there is one character who keeps surviving near death scenes, like how many chances does a character like Angry Anderson's need to survive? His screams are enough to kill off the character straight away!! The stunts are nowhere near as impressive as the previous films and the chase just loses the dramatic edge on your seat feel.

The midpoint of the film suffers due to the kids feeling like their lifted from Hook or Lord of the Flies.

Gibson's character as Max is underwritten in this one, again he barely speaks however it seems like the character is a void at the centre of the film. There's no sense of his desperation, his survival or his primal nature here, he's just a stock standard hero character. Tina Turner's visually looks apocalyptic, holds her own with only a few lines given to her including 'he is just a raggedy man" and "death is listening and it will take the first man who screams." Personally, I would have liked to see more of her presence in the movie to find out her real intentions other than taking out Master Blaster or the reasons of her real intentions. Is it power or the love of Bartertown?

The standout to me was the introduction to Thunderdome, from the start we hear Dr. Dealgood explaining the rules in a carnival barker like manner mixed with a boxing MC announcer, where in the arena "Two Men Enter, One Man Leaves." This is where Max fights with the ruling champion Blaster (the muscle with no brains from Master Blaster), both men are suspended on an elastic harness from the vaults of a giant dome ready for battle in a style similar to gladiator combat. Both leap around each other, bouncing, reaching for weapons such as a spear or chainsaw, in what Aunty Entity and the other spectators hope will be a battle to the death. From the start where Dr. Dealgood starts off with the "Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls... Dyin' time's here", to the end of the fight - is the highlight of the film which didn't belong at the beginning of the film.

Now the children - I actually liked how the kids spoke in their modified English, which resembled the Lost Kids from Peter Pan/Hook. I guess the filmmakers used this plot to enable Max to protect the children as they help him regain a bit of humanity and the future of the nation. However due to not fully developing their characters, other than waiting to see the tomorrow-tomorrow land, the children just seem as an annoying group of a subplot this includes the upbeat score.

Overall, the Tina Turner songs are a blast however the story just misses the dystopian adrenaline rush 6/10.

Welcome back to another edition of Adam's Reviews!! **queue intro music**

Tonight's movie flick is The Matrix Revolutions (2003), the concluding act of the Wachowski Brothers trilogy which begins where the sequel, Reloaded, left off; Neo, played by the coolest of cool dudes Keanu Reeves, is unconscious, trapped in a place between the real world and the machine world; this realm, which takes the form of a subway station, is controlled by the Trainman, played by Mad Max alum Bruce Spence. Neo is in a coma after stopping machines in the real world with his mind - the filmmakers use this as a core concept throughout the movie. This new idea among the extravagant fight scenes of the humans fighting against the sentinel machines or the fight scene in the fetish style club where Trinity and Morpheus with the help of Seraph attempt to track the Trainman at a club run by the Merovingian where you see one woman twisting another woman's nipples and heaps of punky people wearing leather outfits that seem to be made for a BDSM movie. And this is where the film continues into a no return point and very quickly it begins to stray away from cool fictional fantasy into loony town.

The main plot of the movie is simple where the filmmakers build this extravagantly staged, fantastically noisy battle between the humans and the machines. This dull plot steers away interesting, original, cool ideas of the first film, and all the humanity, too, are left far behind in this limp conclusion which has little in the way of coherent plot or interesting characters. Don't get me wrong, the movie does have many positives, its always good to see multiple Hugo Weavings as the devilish Mr. Smith, but the rest of the cast simply look bemused and all those fancy outfits and Chinese-influenced fights seem very second-hand and recycled from Reloaded.

Film trilogies are a difficult thing to get right due to the hype and anticipation for any great trilogy can be so high and put on a pedestal, it is almost certain the ending would suffer. Matrix Revolutions, was no different. Despite its efforts to create new and interesting ideas, you knew the humans would triumph with the help of Neo. Well kind of - there is peace between the humans and machines which was teased in the sequel, humans need machines t get tasks done and completed. The ending - I myself when I watched it when the flick came out in cinemas, did not see it coming. After watching it again, it was so wild and nonsensical that all its originality was wasted and undone. The film drew more towards the terminology of the PC world such as hacking into a human body to upload an anti-virus program in order to remove Smith completely, it steered away from the science fiction aspect.

The dialogue is difficult at times, characters such as Morpheus is treated into a co-pilot and has little to say in this entry which is a shame as this character was a pivotal character from the first film. The filmmakers do deserve credit for being inventive and creative, many of their choices just don't make much sense. Like how did that sentinel go through Neo in the fields?? The screenplay is simply unable to deliver satisfying story arcs or resolutions for these characters. Yes, the film is visually impressive, the most grounded part of the film lies in the attack on Zion where heaps of sentinels penetrate the Zion defences and the war sequences do pack a punch and do make a slight impression. The sequences with Bane were a bit tiresome, while it seems to be a good idea to have a subplot where Smith invades and explores the human world, most of the material we end up with in Bane's escapades represents stuff we really don't want to waste time looking at. Bane gets more rope and screen time than he is worth and personally, I much prefer the Ani-Matrix episode "Matriculated" in terms of the machines exploring the human world.

This final instalment for the time was such a letdown and the departure from the successful things that were done in the previous two films. The final battle between Neo and Smith ended with Neo rewriting Smith with the help of the big Deux Ex Machina to upload a anti-virus. But didn't we kind of see this in the ending of the original? The best part was the dialogue where we find out that Neo is actually fighting the Oracle taken over by Smith, yeh - very nice twist.... and nice to see that she takes over for one line of dialogue and confounds Smith beautifully. We now see Smith scared and anxious as we he uses her ability to predict the future, while also gaining her limit of not being able to see past the choice he doesn't understand. All of this is very well played by Hugo Weaving. What I don't understand is the deal between Neo and the Source (the big Deux Ex Machina) - why agree to the deal? To me this part is never quite clear where everyone in the Matrix is infected by Smith and the whole point of the Matrix is it's a place to keep human minds occupied so that the machines can use their energy, right? Does it really matter if the minds are all the same or not as long as the bodies are pumping out watts? Maybe Smith infecting them kills them and therefore they are no longer energy sources? There's some talk of Smith being able to destroy everything but the movie never tells us how and the never explains what Smith's relationship is with the machines or the Source. And when Neo did win, the machines carried his body...why? Will everyone in the Matrix be freed and Neo will be used as the only human energy to power up the machines?

Now to the agreement...what kind of agreement did Neo entered into with the machines on their behalf. Stories that use this sacrificial structure successfully need to carefully set things up in order to invite the audience to understand on not whats on stake but more so the explanation and as movie goers we can rest purely on its emotional impact after the fact. In my opinion this letdown on not providing us the details on the explanation on Neo's newly founded skills such as seeing the machines whilst blind, able to sense machines in the real world and the agreement lets the most crucial moment possible down which has led to why many people find this to be the most disappointing film in the trilogy.

Another major plot hole is Neo's predecessors' - did they also create mutated Smiths? Was Zion in the brink of destruction and its inhabitants getting massacred by the sentinel machines? All we get is The Kid's silent war cry "Neo, I Believe", like what do you believe Kid? Do you believe that the program Smith who has mutated and infected everyone in the Matrix is the result of Neo in the first film therefore it is Neo's who is guilty on what has transpired and has to fix his own mistake? There are little explanations on the connection between Smith and Neo, all we receive are surface level information.

The best part of the film were these two characters, Trinity and Neo having one last moment together before Neo's eventful sacrifice. Teary and heart-warming but its soon forgotten due to the upcoming induced macho energy of the fight between Neo and Smith. Instead of using elements around Love and how programs can understand the connection of emotive words, the film in the end was more of an action movie. Overall, the movie fails on so many levels, it even fails Neo's story arc who feels a bit wimpy in this entry by continually admitting how clueless he is about what to do. It was a shame to say goodbye to Neo and Trinity with such little fanfare 6.5/10.

Welcome back to another edition of Adam's Reviews!! **queue intro music**

It's been a while movie goers and since it's the Christmas holidays, I found time to watch an early 80's gem via YouTube.

Tonight's movie flick is My Dinner with Andre (1981), which feels like listening to a podcast but really highlights a dialogue between 2 men in a restaurant that runs for over 100 minutes. This indie film directed by Louis Malle and written by the underrated Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, who are playing themselves, converse around whether the world is a stage and whether people are acting to fit into their respective roles in life without realisation. The two discuss topics such as not living, not being authentic, the disconnect they feel among the society they find themselves in and how society are institutionalised to think a certain way, to talk a certain way and to live a certain way.

In my opinion, this film is designed to wake people up from slumber and monotony of life or in simple terms this movie represents a spiritual awakening. This is where these two characters contrast each under during their meet up, where we have Andre, who is on a quest for spiritual awakening and enlightenment in the name of growth while on the other side you have Wally, hiding under electric blankets, an anodyne to the suffering of the world because "our lives are tough enough as it is." Wally's character who is happy with his morning cold coffee as long as there are no cockroaches, represents the norm, the individuals who are self-aware enough to know what's coming but not yet brave enough to get out of the institutionalised system they feel trapped.

The film is a deceptively simple two-hander. A playwright and actor named Wally (Wallace) Shawn is on his way uptown to have dinner with his old friend, the theatre director André Gregory at a poshy upscale restaurant of Andre's choosing. The movie is narrated by Wally and we soon learn that he dreads seeing Andre and the reason is that he has heard his old friend has experienced transcendent experiences by randomly spending the last few years traveling around the world and has resulted into Andre sobbing on the street and talking to trees. This has of course has led to Wally not wanting to see his friend in this state.

Once the two friends meet for dinner, it starts off with Wally commenting how good Andre' looks, this invites the audience on how society is trained to be nice and touch on surface level discussions rather than diving deep into what really matters for human connection; authenticity. For the next forty minutes, Andre talks almost nonstop, barely pausing to dismember the succulent quail that both he and Wally have ordered, Wally, on the other hand, limits himself to such comments as "Gosh" and "Uh-huh," or such probing questions as "What happened then?" and "Andre! How can you say something like that?"

Andre talks about his time in a forest in Poland, his journey to the Sahara with a Japanese Buddhist monk, his time in a Scottish town, his mundane experience in India and a ritual he participated where he was buried alive. The stories sound outlandish and weird in particular where Andre imagined an SS officer identifying with Antoine de Saint-Exupery's The Little Prince, a book that has great significance for Andre.

The adventures of Andre aren't so much about what he did nor is it his seductiveness as a storyteller speaking in a smooth, urbane style, but rather his desperation to reach out to someone who can possibly make sense of what he has put himself through and reassure him that he's not insane. The second half of the film slowly shifts to a vehement argument between the two men where Wally who is bugged by Andre's comment on the world, is on the attack. Wally presents himself as a scientific rationalist and an individual who likes comfort. He views Andre's brand of "magical thinking" as ridiculous and that people should be happy in their lives regardless if it means been stuck in a cold city such as New York.

We might have a sense of the anger that Wally has been keeping and directing at Andre is more of how he is projecting how mundane his life is and knows that the city he lives is in, is a jail centre which he cannot escape. This can be demonstrated of how Wally keeps defending his position in life and the more he challenges Andre, the more he's forced to admit his own confusion and frustration. And it's the same for Andre where he is unable to share how one can shift one's consciousness to be awakened in this world rather than sleeping with the comfort the system provides in order to make you feel dead inside.

The movie is what it is on the surface...two friends having dinner and talking, while much of the movie is just Andre & talking experiences and philosophy, which to be honest isn't easy to follow, the movie feels much more real when Wally begins to call him out. And the responds from Andre not only challenges Wally but to you moviegoers, which makes this film feel like you are listening to a podcast. A notion that hit the cord was fitting a role and to be stuck on the idea of a son, a daughter and a wife when in reality one should be living their lives rather than looking for the perfect Insta or Kodak family moment.

This isn't a movie that you can expect to watch and understand, but it is a movie you can watch and debate and may end up changing moviegoers' views over time...maybe once you'd side with Andre and the next time Wallace. It also changes with time and ideas. To me this movie is worth a visit, overall 9/10.