Reviews

I have a confession to make. I'm not a massive fan of the original Top Gun. I think it is an ok movie but I don't think it is as amazing as it is as great as it is made out to be. Nevertheless for some reason I get the urge to rewatch it from time to time.

Now, 36 years later, there is a sequel. Tom Cruise is back as Maverick with Jerry Bruckheimer as producer along with Cruise and Joseph Kosinski taking over as director from the late Tony Scott. This time we see Maverick returning to Top Gun this time as an instructor for a new group of recruits which includes the son of Maverick's deceased friend.

The flight sequences in this movie are enjoyable, in fact more than they are in the first movie. I really liked the interactivity between Maverick and Goose's son Rooster and the reasonings behind it. The friction between Maverick and the Top Gun instructors also added to the movie. It was also nice to see Val Kilmer as Iceman and the scene where they reunite was heartwarming.

The movie does however have its downsides. The storyline is a fairly simple one. And I didn't find it as thrilling or as impactful as it is made out to be.

Overall it is a worthy sequel that is enjoyable and actually better than the first one although if I'm being honest, I don't think it is as great as it is made out to be.

I only heard about this movie when YouTube channel WatchMojo listed it as one of their top 10 movies of 2021. And after it was nominated for 12 nominations including Best Picture, I decided to see what all the fuss was about.

Unfortunately I was not impressed with this movie. The story is very weak and basic. It seems to just be about Benedict Cumberbatch not being very nice to Kirsten Dunst and her son, even when his brother marries into their family. It doesn't make use of a score which further adds to it being dull.

Cumberbatch's character does seem to make some sort of impact which saves the movie from being a bad one in my opinion. But even so, I've seen other spiteful characters make a bigger impact than that.

It seems to come across as an Oscar-bait movie which has somehow managed to succeed in its mission in getting recognised by the Oscars. Even the Oscars themselves don't always get it right. Notable examples being The Shawshank Redemption and Citizen Kane. If it does end up winning Best Picture, then it further emphasises the point.

Overall a very average movie which is honestly overrated.

I love a good sci-fi movie. But when I first saw David Lynch's version of Dune, I was underwhelmed.

I should also state that I'm not a fan of Denis Villeneuve. I find his style too dull and dreary. I wasn't impressed with Sicario. Arrival was slightly better but I found it slow and still not that great. I liked Blade Runner 2049 but it did feel like they stretched it out just to fill the long runtime. So when I heard Villeneuve was doing a remake of Dune, I wasn't having my hopes high.

After seeing the movie, I have to say my expectations were exceeded and this is possibly Villeneuve's best movie. The set designs were great as were the special effects and battle sequences. It does go into a lot of detail in terms of story and the background.

A lot of people have complained about the movie being slow. Personally I didn't think it was but I could see why. As already mentioned it does cover a lot and you do need to give it your full attention.

I just hope Part Two lives up!

I've been a big James Bond fan since I was 13 years old and for me, the release of a new James Bond movie is like an event. It has been 6 years since the release of the previous movie, Spectre. There have been difficulties getting No Time To Die off the startline. Then there were the numerous delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Now finally, Daniel Craig's swansong in the form of No Time To Die has finally arrived!

Personally I absolutely loved it! The story was a great one with great character development and dynamic woven into it. Rami Malek did great as the villain. I know some people thought he was a bit underused which I can see why. The action sequences were fantastic. Hans Zimmer did a great job with the score. I'm really glad they brought him on as I love a lot of his scores and he is a legend in Hollywood. The theme song by Billie Eilish was also great and in combination with yet another fantastic signature credit sequence.

Without giving anything away, it does have its twists to the point where they will shock and even polarise Bond fans and moviegoers. I personally thought it really added to the movie although it is going to take me some time to sink in. And at some point, I will need to watch it again.

It has the longest runtime for a Bond movie at 2 hours and 43 minutes. But I thought it was paced out really well and I didn't really feel it. I would advise going to the toilet beforehand and giving it your full focus as there is a lot going on.

No Time To Die certainly fits in my personal top 5 list of James Bond movies. And for certain, I will get it as part of the Blu Ray boxset when it comes out.

We've had so many World War 2 movies but hardly any World War 1 movies. The last one I can think of is Wonder Woman but that wasn't an official World War 1 move. But now we've finally got one in the form of 1917.

The story itself is decent although you could argue its not one of the best. But the way it is captured is what makes this movie a very good one.

The single shot take works very well. It makes the journey throughout the movie more realistic and making it look like its in real time. The movie also had a lot of intense moments which worked better with the single shot technique.

The movie deserves more credit for its cinematography, intensity and realism rather than the story and the history behind it. That was what made it a very good movie but just not one of the best. Having said that though, I do feel this is more in line with director Sam Mendes's forte compared to the James Bond movies. What he tried to do with Skyfall is achieved much better in 1917. Glad hes gone back to where his strengths are.

I had watched the 2011 movie with Jason Statham when it came out and was rather disappointed with it. I found out afterwards that it was in fact a remake of this movie. Some years later I found this on Netflix and decided to give it a go.

I had already seen Death Wish which also starred Charles Bronson and was also directed by Michael Winner. I thought it was an ok movie, not as great as its made out to be. This time we have Bronson in the role of Arthur Bishop while Jan-Michael Vincent who sadly passed away back in February playing his protege.

While enjoyable the first half of the movie is quite slow. But then it starts to pick up halfway through. The plot is fairly simple but is pulled off quite well.

The action is pretty decent with a satisfying motorbike chase and good gunfight towards the end. I felt they could've easily added an exciting car chase before the gunfight.

Overall a good retro movie which I enjoyed. Its on Netflix if you want to give it a go.

This is the eighth entry in the Fast and the Furious franchise. This time we see Dominic Toretto betraying the people he is close to and working for the villain Cipher played by Charlize Theron.

As with the more recent movies in the franchise, the action was top- notch. There was plenty of comic relief from Tyrese Gibson making this movie more funny than the majority of comedy movies (which I personally don't find funny). Cipher made a good villain and was played well by Charlize Theron. It is also interesting, without giving anything away, to see much of the family dynamic in this movie.

It is safe to say that this movie delivered just as much as the more recent entries in this franchise and it paves the way for more movies to come. Bring them on!

Where Eagles Dare is a World War 2 based action thriller where British secret agents are given a mission to infiltrate a Nazi castle and rescue a prisoner of war.

I first heard about this movie via the Facebook group For Bond Fans Only where one member mentioned the movie stating that Richard Burton's performance would have qualified him for the role of James Bond. I myself became eager to see the movie and ordered it from Amazon for only £2.

While the plot may seem thin when you first read the blurb on IMDb, it turns out to be much more complex than that with a few great twists. This in turn adds to the thrills of the movie which will get you gripped. The double act of Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood added star quality to the movie. The action sequences were also very exciting to watch and added extra spice to the movie.

I must say I was pleasantly surprised with this movie. This is not your typical World War 2 movie. In fact it was more than that. I don't understand why this movie is not well know. It should be considered a classic. I may consider watching other classic World War 2 movies after this such as The Dirty Dozen. My £2 spent was definitely worthwhile.

Captain America: Civil War is the third Captain America movie with a similar theme to the more hyped up Batman v Superman. While Batman v Superman was an enjoyable movie it failed to live up to the hype. So it was up to Captain America: Civil War to redeem the theme of superheroes facing off against each other, and I'm glad to say it did that.

It has a better storyline and it delivers it much more systematically unlike Batman v Superman where it was very slow. It was also able to utilise other Marvel superheroes in a much better way than Batman v Superman. We also get a bit more background behind the characters portrayed in the movie. And the action is a lot better compared to your typical superhero movie.

I really enjoyed Captain America: The Winter Soldier and thought it was the best movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But Civil War manages to just about match it. The Russo brothers have once again managed to do a fantastic movie. The good news is that they will also be directing Avengers: Infinity Wars Parts 1 and 2 so I'm really hoping that the Marvel Cinematic Universe will be better from here on. As for DC, standards seem to have slipped since Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Either they need to get Nolan more involved or take a leaf out of Marvel's book if they want Justice League to be successful.

Before this movie had started filming there was some negativity over some of the casting choices, more notably Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman and Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. But as time went on, there was considerable hype over the movie. Then the negative reviews came along. Now I don't trust the critics so I just went along and saw the movie.

The storyline was OK although I have to say it was quite slow and took some time for it to add up. I didn't mind Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne. Jesse Eisenberg tried to make the role of Lex Luthor his own but it didn't quite work. In fact his portrayal of Lex Luthor wasn't really like that in the previous movies. A couple of the action sequences were fun to watch and some of the special effects were nice. I watched the movie in IMAX which did make it that exciting.

Overall I thought it was a good, enjoyable and worthwhile movie but I didn't enjoy it as much as Man of Steel. Some of the elements that made me enjoy the movie were there but not to the extent of Man of Steel. In terms of superhero vs superhero movies, I hope Captain America 3 can improve on that.

I believe it was 3 years ago when the announcement came that Disney bought the rights to Star Wars and announced that they were making a new trilogy of movies. When I heard this, my thoughts were "this is a joke". I continued to hold that thought over that period of time and the hype surrounding the movie was unfathomable. I honestly did not see how it would be possible to continue after the events of Return of the Jedi.

Nevertheless I thought I would still watch the movie. To my surprise I actually liked it. They were actually able to come up with a decent story to continue. They also introduced new characters and made them the main characters rather than put the focus on the recurring characters which I thought was a good idea. I also liked the background of the characters. It did leave one or two unanswered questions which hopefully will be answered in the later movies. I liked J.J. Abrams's movies and once again he has delivered.

I'm still not quite sure if the hype is justified though. There have been a number of occasions when a movie has been bigged up, I end up going in and thinking it wasn't as great as people thought it was. In this case, however, my expectations were lowered. I can only hope that the other two movies to be released keeps up the standard.

It's Christmas time and being a massive movie fan I decided it would be appropriate to watch some Christmas movies. I hadn't seen Elf so I thought I'd give it a go.

So Will Ferrell plays a human who was brought up by elves and decides to go and find his real family.

Now there are a few Christmas movies which I enjoy but unfortunately this isn't one of them. I found it minimally funny. In fact the humour was a bit too childish for my own liking.

I was never really a fan of Will Ferrell. I found him a bit silly and I don't think he fitted the role. I think his role would have been better suited to someone younger.

Please forgive me for being like Scrooge but I did not enjoy this movie. If you want a good family Christmas movie, watch Home Alone instead.

I had heard about this movie being a classic actioner featuring a classic car chase and having won 5 Oscars. Eleven years ago I watched this movie when it came on TV. At the time I thought it was the worst movie I had ever seen and was so baffled as to how it could be so popular. I felt it was just a series of random events put together and so deeply disappointed by the so called classic car chase which was just a car driving fast underneath a trainline. In my previous review for this movie I actually went as far as rating it 1/10.

However there have been a number of movies which I enjoyed more after a second viewing including Batman Begins, Alien and Point Break. So I finally decided I would give The French Connection another go.

I will admit it was much better than my first viewing. However I do not think this is a good movie, let alone a classic. There was a storyline which was OK although it did get a bit disjointed at times. Gene Hackman did a good job in his role as well. There was no score for the movie which would have made it more intense. There was of course still little action and I was still a bit underwhelmed by the car chase.

While it is something you can watch if you've got nothing else to do, for me it does not qualify as a great movie. My opinion is you'd be better off watching Dirty Harry released the same year or Ronin which I think are far better movies.

I have been a fan of the James Bond movies since I was a teenager. Three years ago when the franchise celebrated its golden anniversary I was really looking forward to Skyfall. When the movie came out, it split opinion. Although I thought the movie was good, I was a bit underwhelmed by it. It was quite slow, the plot borrowed from other movies and a lot of the action sequences were too brief. I felt Sam Mendes was partly to blame because he is an artistic director, not a mainstream one and not the right person to direct a Bond movie.

So I was disappointed to hear later on that Sam Mendes will be directing this Bond movie as well. Nevertheless my excitement was still high. Then the movie was released and once again, having read all of the comments here on IMDb, it has split opinion. I was getting worried about how this movie would be like following my views on Skyfall. This evening I watched the movie in IMAX and I'm glad to say that I really like it.

First of all the gun-barrel sequence is back where it should be: at the beginning of the movie. I know a lot of people don't like Sam Smith's "Writing's On The Wall" for the theme song but I absolutely love it. I can't tell you how many times I've listened to it now. The song also accompanies an always visually exciting opening credits sequence. The storyline was a better one than in Skyfall and also incorporated characters into it by exploring the backgrounds of Bond and the villain. Other regulars, M, Q and Moneypenny are utilised more. I'm also glad to say that the action sequences are considerably better than in Skyfall, and when I say better I mean longer. Christoph Waltz did a decent job as the villain playing it cool and cerebral. There were also great captures of the sceneries, a couple of thrills, links to Craig's previous Bond movies and good humour as well.

I will admit there are a couple of flaws with this movie. I know a lot of people have complained that it takes things from other movies. Well, yes it does but the references to other movies aren't as bad as in Skyfall. Others have said that parts of the score was the same as in Skyfall. I did also feel that there were some parts in the movie where score should have been used. Also some more substance about the organisation would've been nice.

Overall my wait and excitement had paid off. I thought this was a great movie. It was better than Skyfall and I do feel that Sam Mendes has improved although I'm still not sure if he should direct Bond again.

A Bond fan is left satisfied.

The Spooks TV show has been a popular hit in the UK. Now the producers have gone and made a spin-off movie. Peter Firth is back in his role as Harry while we welcome a new addition in the form of Kit Harrington.

First of all, this movie is somewhat separate from the TV show. You don't need to have seen the TV show in order to understand what is going on. The movie had a fairly decent storyline and that is what it mainly focuses on. There are also a couple of intense moments which is what I like in a thriller. There is also a bit of character development as well. Without giving anything away there are also a couple of twists. Don't go into this movie expecting gun fights and car chases - you will be disappointed. They didn't have that kind of thing in the TV show, so it would make sense to do the same thing for the movie.

All in all, it was a good movie to enjoy. I have only seen the first two seasons of the TV show which I enjoyed and I didn't have any problems with this movie. So for me it worked.

Jupiter Ascending is the latest offering from the Wachowski siblings who brought us The Matrix.

It stars the stunningly looking Mila Kunis as the protagonist who is destined to have a bright future but instead works a dead end job cleaning the toilets. She is then helped by Channing Tatum's character to meet that destiny.

I have been aware of this movie for a while and had been looking forward to it. The delay of the movie made me more eager to watch it. I was a bit surprised when the first votes for this movie weren't very good. Nevertheless I was still wanting to watch it. It seems that the votes are now justified.

The Wachowskis tried to make a complex storyline like they did with The Matrix but unfortunately it didn't work out. A lot of the story elements either weren't explained at all or not explained properly.

While the visual effects were stunning, the same can't be said for the action sequences which were ruined by the camera-work making them more difficult to enjoy.

Eddie Redmayne, who recently did a good job as Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything, sadly falls flat as a villain in this movie, especially his voice which was not as menacing as it should have been.

One redeeming factor is that it does have one or two comic moments. Perhaps a bit more would have been nice.

While the movie started off fairly well, it gradually lost its steam. Overall the wait was not worth it. I didn't get what I wanted from it. You're better off watching The Matrix or Inception again.

The Superman franchise is the latest to get the reboot treatment. With Warner Brothers having had success with Christopher Nolan's rebooted Batman series, they decided to bring him on board for the Superman reboot. It has worked very well.

This movie has somewhat taken the same route as Batman Begins did with exploring the origin and beginning of Superman which really added substance and more depth to the protagonist.

While the Christopher Reeve movies had a more light-hearted tone to them, this movie is more grounded and gritty. The old Superman movie theme tune and red trunks on Superman's suit are gone which was a good thing.

While the action sequences were admittedly over the top, they were still great fun to watch. The special effects were also fantastic.

I have to say that I am bewildered that this movie didn't get great reviews. Then again, I've come to realise that movie critics can't be trusted because they really don't know how to enjoy movies and end up taking them too seriously. It's not the first time either. They have also given negative reviews to other popular movies including Taken and Man on Fire. So the take home message is simple - don't trust the critics!

Arguably, this is the best Superman movie so far. Christopher Nolan's touch has really worked here. The long-term hype was worth it.

The sixth and latest installment in the Fast and the Furious franchise sees Agent Hobbs ask for the help of Dominic Toretto and his gang help track down a wanted criminal.

I have to say that this was the movie I was most looking forward to in the 2013 Summer blockbuster period, and I'm glad to say that I got what I wanted from it.

The movie had a lot of exciting action sequences which made it an improvement to the previous movie. Given that a lot of action movies lately have been disappointing mainly because of the lack of action, this is continuing the resurrection of proper action movies following The Expendables movies and The Last Stand. Let's hope this path remains open.

Being a UK citizen, I loved the idea of having it set in London and having some of the action scenes take place in London, even though they were actually filmed in Glasgow. It made good use of the London scenery and it was nice to see the fabulous Rita Ora make a cameo.

It also had a lot of humour which made it funnier than most bad comedy movies and even some popular ones which in my opinion were overrated (*cough* The Hangover *cough* Ted *cough*).

The story-line wasn't exactly good but then again, none of the story- lines in any of the movies in this series are. At the end of the day, it's more style than substance.

If I have one criticism to make, it's that one or two of the stunts were unrealistic. But let me put it this way - at least it's not as bad as a lot of really terrible and over-the-top Bollywood movies.

I seriously think that this is the movie that should've rounded off the franchise rather than make a seventh movie for next year. All I can hope for now is that without Justin Lin on board, they don't mess it up.

This is a movie adaptation of the popular 1970s British television show only the setting is in modern day and with Ray Winstone and Ben Drew playing the respective roles played by John Thaw and Dennis Waterman in the original series.

Alone it makes a good action movie with one or two good car chases and gunfights. The storyline was reasonable even though its the sort you would see in an episode of the original series. Although Ray Winstone does well for himself, his interpretation of Jack Regan is different to how John Thaw portrayed the character if it doesn't lack any background. The interpretation of Detective Chief Inspector Frank Haskins isn't as robust as it should have been and doesn't get much screen time. Instead, a completely new character is introduced and appearing to have more emphasis than the Haskins character. One thing the makers of the movie did was capture bird's eye views of London which one could argue was a bit unnecessary. Even though a lot of movies have it and I personally don't get offended by it at all, a lot of the profanity in the dialogue was also on the unnecessary side.

I like the original television series but I'm a much bigger fan of movies, particularly action movies which is why I enjoyed it. I can understand that a lot of people who were fans of the TV show may not find this much to their satisfaction. But as far as I'm concerned, I got what I wanted from it.

All the action heroes from the first movie are reunited in this movie, plus a few extras and a little bit expanded roles from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis.

I loved the first movie and scored it 10/10 mainly because a lot of action movies before have been disappointing when it comes to action. This sequel also contains enough action to satisfy although it could have been a bit better by extending one or two of the action scenes in between Another thing that would have made it better was to include a car chase which the first movie had. The storyline is not a very good one but when it comes to a straightforward action movie like this one, its what you would expect. This movie is style over substance, so don't go in expecting Shakespeare or whatever. It also contains a lot of good humour making it funnier than most overrated if not bad comedy movies. And as one of my friends pointed out, Jean-Claude Van Damme made a better villain than in the first one.

Even though I thought it could have been better in one or two ways, I still liked it. Lets hope Expendables 3 will take this on board.

The Iron Lady is a biopic of Britain's first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher.

Now I'm not really fond of Margaret Thatcher myself although I was interested in seeing a movie biopic about her and expecting it to be up to the standards of other great movie biopics including Gandhi and Braveheart. Unfortunately, The Iron Lady fails to meet this standard by a long chalk. There are two major factors that make this movie fail. The first is that it focuses much more on the elderly Margaret Thatcher and her suffering from dementia. The second factor is that much less focus is placed on her life, her ascent in politics, and her notorious premiership which is exactly what many of us remember her for. What should have been the main focal point of this movie ended up becoming the opposite of that. Although the focuses on her life and career were interesting to watch, they were minimal in the context of the movie.

The best part of the movie by far was Meryl Streep's performance. She definitely looked like Margaret Thatcher and she got the voice and mannerisms right. You really sense that it is Margaret Thatcher and not Meryl Streep playing Margaret Thatcher, much in the same way as Heath Ledger played the Joker in The Dark Knight.

This biopic is disappointing because its focus was shifted to the wrong aspect. Years before, rumour had it that Oliver Stone was making the movie. If only those rumours turned out to be true...

This is a movie adaptation of the William Shakespeare play Coriolanus. I had never heard of this play before and I suppose its a good thing to have another Shakespeare play adapted in comparison to the more well- known ones including Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet.

Even though the play itself takes place in ancient Rome, Ralph Fiennes decided to make a modernisation of this play. I have to say that it has worked very well and can be compared to Baz Luhrmann's modernisation of Romeo and Juliet, even though I thought that particular movie overall was just watchable. I am not actually that fond of Shakespeare's plays mainly because I find it so difficult to understand the language he uses which isn't used in this day and age. But this movie told me that he knows how to write a good story. Even if you had never read or even studied this particular Shakespeare play at school, you can tell that the dialogue in this movie is typically Shakespearian. But despite this, you don't really need to understand the language in order to understand what is going on in the movie. After all, it's much more difficult to understand if you're reading the text alone. I guess it was better to use the Shakespearian text rather than modernised English given the setting of this movie. Ralph Fiennes played his role very well, especially when his character becomes angry.

All in all, this is good movie adaptation. Even though I never intend to read any of Shakespeare's plays, I guess for the first time I appreciated Shakespeare, not for his language but for his story.