Reviews

As someone who likes Marvel movies, possibly more than I should given their quality, I've seen a solid chunk of the Russo brothers filmography. While from Winter Soldier to Infinity they have consistently produced some of the MCUs best work, they never seemed to have the same ownership of their films that say a James Gunn or Taika Waititi has. What I'm trying to say is there films lacked a certain stylistic flair, while still being enjoyable there was nothing that ever screamed to me, this is what the Russo brothers brought to the table. Perhaps that's an unfair assessment but never the less I was excited to see some of their post MCU work and find out what they would do without the creative shackles of having to fit into Feige's masterplan. So on a flight back from Greece over the summer I decided to see what they had to offer with the Gray Man. Turns out, not much.

The story is fairly predictable, it follows a super covert Jason Bourne style spy with a special set of skills that means he can beat up anyone he faces, who goes awol after learing a secret he wasn't supposed to know, this leads to him racing round the world with a price on his head, hijinks ensue. There are hundreds of films that have done this before and will be hundreds to come, so how does this one set itself apart? There's a little girl? I guess that's somewhat unique. Ok, so storywise there isn't a whole lot going for it, what about the acting? Ryan Gosling is decent, he's doing that quippy tough guy with a heart of gold thing that, again has been done to death. Ana De Armas is in the film. And then there is Chris Evans, after starring in all of the Russo's MCU films he returns here as the villain. Playing a very similair character to the one he played in Knives Out, he's the snarky wiseass who is just evil because it's fun, again this isn't new. Chris Evans is a fun actor and I've seen a lot of praise for him bringing some much needed life to this xanax of a film but honestly he's just trying too hard for me here, it doesn't come across as sincere and feels forced.

Alright so let's not focus on the actors, this is an action film, how's the action. Bland, one or two creative ideas mixed in but not enough to keep things interesting. Honestly this film is almost a perfect 5, it's not necessarily bad but there was nothing here that felt original or different in any way from the rest of the genre. The only thing that makes it a 6 was that it was fairly well shot.

Painfully average but my eyes liked it.

I hope you enjoyed the first Percy Jackson film because it's back with a vengeance, except with a smaller budget, worse special effects and somehow even more bland than the original, so not really a vengeance, it's just back.

When I reviewed the first film I went in depth into how what I see as a fantastic series of books had been butchered, this film doesn't deserve to have that much thought put into a review because it is nothing, it's bland and unimaginative and I honestly don't remember any of it. Sadly I still have 115 characters left before I can post a review so here is what I think the plot was.

Percy finds out he has a brother, everyone is really racist to Percy's brother even though you would think that since everyone Percy knows has been treated badly for being different they would have a bit of perspective on racism being, ya know, not good. Percy is being beaten by someone in the camp at something so she gets to go on a cool adventure and he doesn't, then he does go on a cool adventure and he saves everyone but something bad happens but they're all ok actually and the film ends. 10/10 pure cinema.

When I was young, Percy Jackson was one of my favourite book series, I remember the world being expertly crafted with intricate attention to detail, I remember loveable characters and smart well written stories and I remember how being different was represented as a super power. None of what made the original book so great is present here.

The story is roughly the same, boy finds out he's got a god for a dad and goes on a roadtrip across America with his friends to save the world, facing a host of enemies from the depths of the Greek mythology canon. So why is this movie so much worse than it's inspirator? In large part it's those little details, thanks to the movie having to fit into a theatrical runtime a lot of events and dynamics are cut or edited to fit. One or two changes are fine but when you are trying to cut down 361 pages into two hours, you lose a lot. Key characters are missing, entire plot lines are gone and what is left behind is a bland, uninspired husk of a film, lacking any of what made it so beloved in the first place. All sense of mystery is gone as god forbid your audience has to think, instead us and the characters are simply told what is happening. Do not worry though as since so much of the boring character development (snore) has been left on the cutting room floor, we'll now have time to include a third act fight scene instead of the far more interesting less cliched ending that the original book had.

It's difficult to explain when someone hasn't read the books why this is such an abomination of an adaptation but hopefully, the upcoming series will right the wrongs of the past and introduce a whole new audience to this world, because, when done right, this is one of the most interesting fantasy universes around.

Finally Miyazaki made a film about flight. Considering almost every film that Miyazaki has made has involved some sort of airborne travel, from the Air Ships in Castle in the Sky to the broomstick in Kiki's delivery service, it was long overdue that he made a film solely focused on the art of aviation, and what a film.

I don't care if you've never been on a plane or if you design aircraft for a living, it is impossible to watch this film without feeling the sheer love Miyazaki has for this and subsequently, that love rubbing off on you. It's a big divergence from Miyazaki's usual work, everything fantastical is relegated to small dream sequences with this film overall acting as a biography of a real mans life.

The man in question is Jiro Horikoski, I had never heard of him before and I doubt many of you have but it just so happens he lived a fascinating life. We see some historical events like the 1923 great Kanto earthquake as well as the Nazis. Is it kind of weird that the Nazis aren't all that bad in this film? Some would say it is but I think there's enough subtle nods to show they are evil but our main character doesn't know. Also, this film isn't really about good guys and bad guys, this is a theme throughout Miyazaki's work where there are hardly any flat out evil characters. Are there characters who appear bad in this, Kurokawa, Jiro's boss at first appears malicious but by the end he is one of your favourite characters.

This probably isn't going to be a kids favourite film but for a slightly older audience this is a wonderful film. It's animation is crisp, it has a good score, and is just fascinating.

While this does have some cool ideas, a positive message about looking after our oceans and some likeable characters, there is a slight feeling that something is missing. I'm a big fan of this film, don't get me wrong, but, it feels too simple. Hayao Miyazaki's films are usually simplistic but they have all these side stories that intertwine to flesh out the worlds. We get a bit of that here but I just feel like it could have used more.

On the other hand, I love the animation. Water especially looks fantastic in this film and the scene with the storm brings such a great sense of motion that you can't help but be entranced. All the characters are likeable, especially Sosuke's mum, Lisa. The best scene in the film for me isn't anything to do with magic or the storm, it's when Sosuke's dad is too busy to come home. You can't help but feel for all involved, every side makes sense and it's easily the most emotional scene in thee film. I just wish we had gotten more of these intensely human moments instead of focusing so much on the more magical side.

Still, in the end this is a cute film with a nice central plot and strong characters, not Miyazaki's strongest work but still enjoyable.

Let's begin with what seems to be the biggest criticism of this film, the comedy. Having seen Taika Waititi's other films I felt fairly prepared for there to be a joke every 5 seconds, not every joke landed and there were moments when jokes didn't fit the tone but overall, I wasn't too distracted by it. I think this film failed in a lot of other ways but for me at least the overabundance of humour was passable.

What I wasn't such a huge fan of was how rushed everything felt. Alright, maybe rushed is the wrong word, we spent ages watching the stuff that I was less interested in and then just skipped over the stuff I was there to see, namely Gorr. Gorr is the villain, played excellently by Christian Bale. Bale is one of the most talented actors alive so you would imagine he would be given time to show off, for some bizarre reason though, we never see Gorr the God Butcher, Butcher any gods. He kills one early on and then is relegated to off screen evil doing, while we instead follow Thor and his gang on their merry adventures. Whenever Gorr was on screen I was excited, but they only gave him like 20 minutes of screentime. Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Natalie Portman as Thor 2 and Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie were all good, but come on. None of them come near to the charisma that Bale brings to the table. So not only did the film just skip over all the most interesting parts, which reportedly were filmed but just not used in the final cut, but then the rest of the film is just a mildly entertaining comedy? I was disappointed.

The best scene, that single handedly dragged this film up from a 5 to a 6 for me, was when Thor fights Gorr on a planet with no colour. The way this was shot was so different from the usual MCU fodder and actually seeing Gorr in his element was great. If the film as a whole had been as inventive and interesting as this one scene then I might have had a brilliant time. It wasn't and I didn't so before I finish I'll just throw in a few nitpicks just to kick this film while it's down.

When Thor and friends seek help from other gods, the majority of the gods feel like really boring designs, they could have had so much crazy stuff here but instead just had a couple weird designs and played the rest safe. There are two goats, they annoy me and aren't funny. Thor's outfit is actually painful to look at. Just a terrible design. Korg is treated as a main character, he was better in the first when we just got small bursts of him, here it starts feeling like too much at points.

This film isn't terrible but it just lacks in a lot of places, the ending was nice enough and certainly tried to get you more emotional than anything else in the film but it was difficult to feel for the characters after an hour thirty of them just quipping. Also all emotional value was ruined by the post credits scene.

Another classic Ghibli film, Hayao Miyazaki hits it out the park again. As with all his films boundless creativity and a great story on display. Feeling like a classic fairy tale, the film revolves around Sophie a young girl who has a spell put on her making her an 80 year old woman. She runs away from her family before they find out about her new look and she becomes a maid for Howl, a powerful wizard who lives in a walking castle. Can we all acknowledge that the castle is one of the coolest vehicles/homes in all of film?

Powered by a fire demon, it's rooms can transform into anything, it has magic teleportation doors and just looks like a wonderful place to stay. It's not the only cool looking thing in the film though. Everything in this film is designed to perfection, every outfit, character or building looks different and interesting. Henchmen have these creepy masks and run like weird mannequins, the evil witch is this fat lump that ages weirdly throughout certain scenes. There are wonderfully complicated looking airships and strange demon dimensions. No matter what it is everything is gorgeous to look at, a real feast for the eyes. I think the story here is fairly standard, but the characters are loveable and you endear to them quickly. Especially Calcifer the fire demon who starts off a pest but who you WARM to overtime. Haha, I'm funny.

Anyway, I don't have too many opinions on this film, it's difficult to look away from and has a nice story, worth a watch.

This film goes the full shebang, I believe that is an apt summary. It's a movie that moves at a million miles an hour with some frenetic editing and crazy cinematography. Usually I find music biopics to be soulless cash grabs, I don't hate them but Bohemian Rhapsody and Rocket Man never wowed me as much as they seemed to others. This film on the other hand kept me gripped fairly consistently. I do think there was a bit too much of Colonel Tom Parker (Tom Hanks), and there were large periods of Elvis' life and career that were just brushed over but despite this I still felt highly satisfied at the end, never having been a huge Elvis fan I immediately felt compelled to listen to his full discography on Spotify, I didn't but that's beside the point.

I've already mentioned the editing and cinematography, both of which I personally thought worked but I could see them being distracting to others. Now what about the cast? I think Austin Butler is impossible to take your eyes off from start to finish, just an all round brilliant performance. I've heard a lot of people calling out Tom Hanks for his part and while I acknowledge it isn't his best, it didn't distract me and I just assumed that was how the real Tom Parker was. The supporting cast was all good, but due to the break neck speed things moved at it felt like we never got to know any of them which was definitely a shame.

I don't think this was a perfect film and I could understand it not clicking with a lot of people, but for me I was able to gloss over a lot of the not so good and focus on the excellent, Doja Cat drop and all.

This feels like a back to basics for Miyazaki, his second film (Nausicaa in the Valley of the Wind) was in a wholly original world but the following few were all our world with a touch of magic. Here the world is full of strange creatures, giant boars, deer with the face of god knows what and weird demon monkeys. This film descends into some pretty trippy stuff. Sadly while these weird creatures are fun I think going whole-hog (pun intended) with the fantasy ends up with us losing out on some of the more intimate human elements and small character interactions. They are still present but not as numerous as in his other works which is a shame.

The animation is as always delightful, every subsequent film he makes, the animation just gets better and better. The creature and costume designs here shine through as otherworldly, the star being the spirit of the forest. It's difficult to describe but it's a bit like a deer crossed with a baboon. The main protagonist, Ashitaka is likeable, San, the wolf girl, is fine but it didn't feel like I knew enough about her to become attached. My favourite character was this weird ugly short fella, Jiko-bo. At points it's unclear what he's trying to do or why but he's funny to look at which is enough to please my simple brain.

This film is good, but for me it never quite lands the with the same punch that films like Totoro, or Kiki's Delivery Service do. This film feels like an attempt at a slightly more grown up tale, showing us blood (surprisingly) and war, and while it's central message of looking after the environment is good. I think this is one of Miyazaki's weaker films.

The characters, the storyline, the soundtrack, even the poster. It all feels new but at the same time familiar. The genius of this film is that it manages to take all of these things we've seen before, fairly common premises on there own, and make it into something wholly unique and exciting. Not quite like anything that's come out before or since. Sure a large part of this is the odd story structure and Tarantino's dialogue, both of which are brilliant. But also by holding a bit longer than other films. This applies in a plethora of ways, first in the characters we watch, instead of just a scene of the enforcers shaking down some guy in his house, we watch their car ride there, them hanging around for a couple minutes, and their car ride back. This is a film that's afraid to cut. Tarantino shows us the stuff in-between the action, and in the hands of a less capable filmmaker this could make the film feel slow, or messy, thanks to the stellar dialogue though we want to see as much as we can of these characters. Some of the best scenes are just Jules and Vincent chatting about hamburgers. I won't put all the praise on the dialogue however, it obviously required some great actors to deliver it and the cast here is stacked with heavy hitters.

Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta are the main two and both actors execute their parts to perfection. Travolta is given more to do than Jackson but as with everything Jackson is in, he steals the spotlight making it feel closer to an equal billing. Uma Thurman is great as Mia, she isn't given loads to do and at times feels more like an obstacle for Vincent (Travolta) but her performance is still very entertaining. Bruce Willis is fantastic and it's always a joy to see him in something different from his usual fare of uninspired action semi-blockbusters, when given something to work with he always turns out a brilliant performance. Rounding out the cast we have a series of enjoyable but more minor roles, Ving Rhames is excellent as Marselus, Tim Roth is always fun and Christopher Walken and Harvey Keitel both steal their respective scenes. Even Tarantino gets in on the action, he certainly isn't up to the talents of the others but he is still good and I think he brings a playful side to what could have been otherwise a more by the books character.

There's a reason this film has ingrained itself in the cultural conscience the way it has, and that's because it is a lustrous tour de force. I think the cinematography isn't as good here as his other films but it all feels intentional and is still by no means bad. I doubt that you would have read all this having not already seen the film but if by some miracle you haven't already. Well, needless to say you should probably get round to it at some point.

Wonderfully animated, with a fantastic score and a charming story and protagonists. Kiki's delivery service is a joy from start to finish. While it explores universal themes of growing up and leaving home for the first time in a way that makes them entertaining to children and adults it also doesn't shy away from more goofy moments.

The cast is full of likeable characters, chief among them the titular Kiki. Moving away from home, she's a young witch who has to prove herself to the local population of a small town. She does this by starting a broomstick delivery service.

This central idea is already an interesting premise to build a film off of but it's in the little scenes that it leads to that the film shines. From a young hermit painter in a wood to a rich old woman in the centre of town, she runs into a host of different people and always ends up becoming friends with them through sheer good will and kindness.

There are more traditionally exciting parts to the film, adventures and hijinks with her losing powers or saving someone from falling off a clocktower, and while these are entertaining, I prefer the quiet moments of companionship she finds in those around her. It's sweet and innocent, and as I said before, a joy from start to finish.

Alex Murphy and Chris Walley play two of the most endearing characters I've ever seen, sure they are misguided but they are also incredibly sweet. The film shows what life is like for single parents, people who are living in difficult circumstances, abusive parents. Quite dark subject matter, but the film had me laughing consistently throughout.

I loved Dominic MacHale as the pseudo villain, and without giving any spoilers his "redemption" is lovely. The story is silly, but reportedly based on real events which is interesting. Hilary Rose as Conor's mother is fantastic. For what was, I'm assuming a very low budget, it is technically well made and nicely shot.

Just an all round well done comedy.

I have been bingeing the work of Hayao Miyazaki and this is where I think he finds his stride, I'm not saying his first few films aren't good, I don't think this man has made a bad film in his life. This film though, is his first certified masterpiece. I love everything. The music is fantastic, the characters are loveable, so damn loveable and the animation is beautiful. The designs of the spirits as well are just next level.

The story is delightful, it balances genuine heartbreak, the mother's illness, Mei's disappearance, (I will admit I was close to tearing up at points), with moments of pure ecstasy, the journey on the cat bus and tree growing. It has a really tight run time, a simple cohesive plot. There is nothing that comes to mind for me to criticise.

It's so close to reaching a 9, so close but I don't quite think it gets there. Still a fantastic film.

This film is very sweet, almost every moment will make you swoon, from a motherly pirate to a town standing up to a bunch of Nazis who are chasing two kids. Are the bad guys Nazis? I don't know? They kind of dress like Nazis. Anyway, boy meets girl, she has a magical Macguffin that leads them to a magic flying castle, different factions are trying to get it, that's the plot. The thing is that you fall in love with every aspect of this film, the art style is fantastic, the titular castle in the sky is one of the most gorgeous images I've seen and from the countrysides to the airships everything is beautiful.

The story is heartwarming but the imagery carries it. This is, in my opinion, a must watch for people interested in animation.

Hayao Miyazaki makes good films, of the films I've seen of his this is probably my least favourite and I still think it is fantastic. The world building is great, the visuals are beautiful, I love the ideas that are at play here. It isn't perfect, some clunky exposition, the animation isn't as fluid as his later stuff (smaller budget obviously though). I don't think action is Miyazaki's strong point, it isn't something I associate with his films, it's still good but he really shines in the quieter moments. I do think this film is slightly forgettable but it's still pretty great, even if it forgettable it is still definitely worth a watch.

Is this the pinnacle of 80s action corniness? Not quite but it's definitely close. From the soundtrack to the nostalgic view it holds of the American military, this film is the product of a simpler time. This isn't a negative though.

Sometimes it's nice to have this simplicity, the soundtrack is so damn catchy and memorable, the army is just protecting the people and cheeky boy meets serious girl. It's taking some really simple over used ideas but it runs with them and it's just a fun time.

The supporting cast is all solid, especially Val Kilmer and Anthony Edwards, Kelly McGillis is good as the love interest, but really this film is a vehicle for Tom Cruise to be cocky and likeable while a basic but entertaining plot goes on in the background. Add in some fighter jet action and Highway to the Danger Zone playing while someone rides a motorcycle and you've got all the ingredients to make a hot-blooded American classic.

This is a solid comedy, it's aged fairly well, jokes are pretty good, the central concept is an entertaining idea. Could they have done more with this, I think there were a lot more things they could have done with the idea of a blind and deaf odd bod couple but there are still some fun set pieces here. Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor are a great duo, but I mean, what would you expect with two titans of 80s comdey. Kevin Spacey (eugh) and Joan Severance are pretty good, the big bad villain is underwhelming but the final battle with him is entertaining.

Decent cinematography, decent script. Not a must watch comedy but still pretty good.

This is a good film, technically it is well made but also the story is funny, the characters loveable and the plot engaging. It does feel like it's trying to hard at points though. Without going into spoilers, there are moments where something weird is thrown in and while at times it is funny, every now and then it feels like the directors trying are trying to make me point at the screen and laugh at how wacky and original they are. It doesn't necessarily take away from the film but I think it does hold it back from being a perfect 10 for me.

I loved every performance, stand outs being Ke Huy Quan and Jamie Lee Curtis for me but Michelle Yeoh and Stephanie Hsu were good too. I was surprised at how technically inept everything was, the action all flowed really well and the special effects looked, especially impressive when you see that all VFX were done by the directors and a few friends.

This is a feel good film with some big laughs but not quite a 10/10 for me.

This film sets out all the pieces in a well thought out, concise manner. As the film progresses we slowly have more of Harper (Jessie Buckley's) backstory unfold in a way that is interesting. The horror elements slowly building in a way that is engaging and eerie, and elegant metaphors falling into place. Then the final 10 minutes throw it all away with vigour by trying to quickly tie up all the threads in some stupid metaphor that requires you to google what happened.

It's a shame because apart from that final 10 - 15 minutes I think this film is genuinely excellent, well made and well executed. A special hand most be given to Rory Kinnear though because he is fantastic throughout. Wish the film could have stuck the landing a bit better.

Brilliant score, masterful performances, a powerful story, David Bowie pretending that he's a teenager is kind of weird but you get over it quick enough.

Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence takes it's time to build a powerful narrative and bring you into a world different from your own. Set in a Japanese POW camp, it follows a group of soldiers and their guards. While both on conflicting sides no one is portrayed as completely evil, instead we watch as events unfurl in a way that is elegant and heartbreaking. All the actors are excellent, especially Takeshi Kitano and Tom Conti. Bowie being there is somewhat of a distraction but he quickly blends in and was clearly the perfect choice for the role. The cinematography is good and the score is a masterpiece. It shows the horrors of war without going the normal route of big action and instead shows the smaller, more ground level events.

A fantastic film.

Is the title somewhat hyperbolic? Yes. But this film fills me with rage, I'm going to split this review into two halves, the first half will be spoiler free, the second more nit picky and with some minor spoilers.

Part 1.

I like the cast, not all of them, but the majority. I think Daniel Kaluuya is the strongest, his performance is reserved but it gets the message across, I think Steven Yeun does well with what he is given, not much, and I think Keke Palmer is likeable enough. Sadly, while the performances are for the most part decent, there is woefully little character development. The characters all just sort of, don't change. I guess maybe some of them grow closer but no one really learns much. I think the whole script is weak, there are multiple storylines which, while relevant to each other, fail to come together in a satisfying way. The dialogue as well is just lazy at points, really cookie cutter formulaic lines, most notably I think from Michael Wincott, who plays a world renowned cinematographer. Talking of cinematography, I think that was hit and miss too. There are some good shots but very little feels creative, and some shots just come off as lazy. Do I think that this film would be doing nearly as well if it wasn't for that fact it has a big name director? No. Not at all. I think that Jordan Peele may be, dare I say it, overrated. I haven't seen Get Out but I hear it's brilliant. I don't doubt that. But I have seen Us. It has a strong first and second act but the third act throws away a lot of the tension that has been built. This film however, never manages to build any tension to throw away. While there are good ideas it struggles to know what to do with them and feels woefully under baked.

Now I would like to nit pick.

Part 2.

(Minor Spoilers)

This film is so dumb and I hate that I can't say that. There are metaphors at play, I understand that, but here's my counterpoint. I don't care. I shouldn't have to finish the film and watch a breakdown plus read multiple dissections to understand why everything is the way it is. Before you call me lazy and tell me that Jordan Peele is trying to make us think. Stop. I get it. I like films where you can gain a deeper appreciation of the themes by doing more in depth research, but that is to gain a deeper appreciation. Not to get any semblance of appreciation. Clever filmmakers allow you to work things out throughout the film, not in the car after on your phone. Also. This film is not scary. I've seen people saying that there are different types of horror, "Horror isn't just jump scares, sometimes it's more drawn out suspense.". Ummm. Did you forget about the jump scares in this film? That were lazy and predictable? Also this film is not suspenseful either. And not scary. The digestion scenes? Look like the inside of a car wash. The chimpanzee scenes? They would have been scarier if they actually fit in with the plot. Instead I was trying to work out why they were relevant. And don't you dare tell me that it is relevant because it shows Steven Yeun can tame an animal and is a comparison to the later events. I GET IT. THAT DOESN'T STOP THEM FEELING OUT OF PLACE AND FORCED. You're telling me there was no way that Peele could have worked these ideas into the plot in a more organic way? Also they aren't even all that similair. The chimpanzee is being held captive, away from his natural environment, in horrible conditions and the alien? It's being fed and used for entertainment sure. But it's not held captive, it does as it pleases. It's just chilling and having the occasional free meal. Also the chimpanzee get's set off by the loud noise of the balloon popping. Not being looked in the eyes. So no, the shoe balancing is not the reason that young Yeun survives, because he is preoccupied and not having a staring contest with Gordy. The reason he survives is plot armour. Also those inflatable wiggly men, let's talk about those. You're telling me that the tech genius guy, who is such a lazy character, has no better way of knowing when the electricity is down, than that. I get it, it's pretty with the colours but it's not genius and the alien. The number one rule of this kind of horror is not to show the creature till the end. Think Alien or Predator. These kind of things are so much scarier when we only get hints as to what they look like. So maybe don't show them really early on in broad daylight. Especially if the design isn't that great. I get how it is supposed to look like a UFO, and it's a sort of twist. But it doesn't make sense. You keep saying not to look it in the eyes when it has no discernible features. Should have called the film Don't Look Up, and when it opens up into it's final form. It makes even less sense. Plus why can you hear screams from it when it flys around? And how come they all cut out as one? Does it swallow people, wait a while and then release stomach acid? Where is the internal logic. My last little thing, it eats some horse statue, then just spits it out. And they say that it now recognizes that. The horse statue was all covered in little colourful flags. Now at the end, the balloon floats up, with colourful flags. And it hasn't learnt a thing, just goes ahead and starts chowing down. Plus it try's to eat it and IT pops, not the balloon? And what was going on with that cloud that never moved? Did it make the cloud? Was the cloud a coincidence? Was it the cloud? If it was the cloud then does that mean it stayed completely still while they were filming that cloud and then only moved when they stopped. I'm sorry, this film is just so nonsensical and I have so many questions. I don't hate it. But it's stupid and dumb and lazy. So stop acting like I just don't get it and except that it has flaws. It is not a masterpiece, it is not the best film of the year, and if someone asked me whether they should watch this film. I would say Nope.

This film is alright. Bunch of people in a hotel, at least one of them is a spy. Police get James Mason's character to investigate and hijinks ensue. This film handles it's premise fairly well and has solid performances all round. The story moves along at a good pace and the cinematography gets the job done. There really isn't all that much to say, it's a fine film but wouldn't appeal to everyone. If you like old mystery films set around WW2 then clearly this is a film for you. If the premise doesn't leap out at you then there are definitely better films to watch. 6/10.

This film is bang average and screams of big corporations. The cameos, which are numerous, feel like they were decided by focus groups and executives sitting around tables working out what properties would get the most interactions on social media. This sometimes works, there is one scene with a few characters all of whom are played by the same actor that did make me chuckle but apart from that they almost all felt hollow to me.

The cast is fine, Andy Samberg and John Mulaney, while not the most inspired casting, are both good. I like Will Arnett no matter what he's in and KiKi Layne is decent even if her performance does feel very child oriented, like she's explaining things to a toddler. The effects though are surprisingly good for the most part. I suppose Roger Rabbit did the same thing in 1988 so it's not like they haven't had 34 years to work out any kinks but still, the effects are good and the integration of humans and animated characters is fairly seamless.

I'm sure kids would enjoy it but I struggle to see much that older viewers will get from it. Not good, not bad, just average.

With a title like Multiverse of Madness you go in expecting, well, a Multiverse of Madness. What you will find is a bland mess of a film, the visuals are neat and the direction is possibly up there as some of the best in the MCU but the characters are hollow shells which do nothing except move the film along. The multiverses we'll be travelling to are the INSANE New York with greenery and the EVEN CRAZIER New York but it's somehow even greyer than it usually is. Unless you count a couple seconds showing actually interesting universes this is all of the multiverse we'll be seeing.

Don't worry though, we have these great characters to take us through the story. I can't wait for Doctor lady who turned up for all of 5 minutes in the first film to be revealed as actually important for some reason. Doctor Strange lacks any real character, he sort of develops but it's very small and doesn't amount to much. America Chavez is here. She's a character. I mean it, she steps on the magic exposition dump pavement so we can see her tragic backstory get televised to the world in a shop window. Neat how that worked out and suddenly I care about this girl who hardly has anything to do apart from move the plot along.

The CGI is pretty bad at points, likely due to the fact they have to rush these films out so that everything fits together. I don't like the forced cameos. Really this film over promised and under achieved. Also the villain reveal is so obvious and the motivations just aren't immediately clear unless you have a decent knowledge of multiple other properties and bits of lore.

The maddest thing about this film is that, even with all this said, I still enjoyed it and I'm going to continue watching every one of these movies until I die or the MCU does. Here's to the next 50 years...

The majority of the fight scenes don't hold up, that is my one major criticism. They have the problem a lot of films of the time faced where they didn't have any blood when people are cut, they just fall over. Apart from this though this film is fantastic.

The characters are all interesting and are served excellently with strong performances by the cast. Kurosawa manages to always fill his characters with, well character, making even the smallest of roles memorable. The cinematography is beautiful, feeling timeless in a way many films do not, the story is a somewhat basic premise but is taken in interesting directions and plays out in a satisfying way. The music is also delightful.

Want proof this film is great, Sergio Leone, a genius in his own right, made an almost shot for shot remake of it he enjoyed it so much! If like me you are trying to broaden your film knowledge then exploring the films of Kurosawa is an excellent place to start, he also wrote a very interesting book but that is beside the point.

A master at work, partnered with the brilliant Toshirô Mifune, of course this film was going to be good. A solid 8/10.