Reviews

When my girlfriend told me that she wanted to watch Mike & Molly with me, I was very apprehensive. Why do I always have to watch these sit-com/rom-com series, I thought to myself?

Well, it turns out that the series isn't half so bad. The pilot is good - I find that we can watch it over and over again and still laugh out loud at the gags and jokes. The production is great, but the acting is more than a little corny. It comes off as far too cheesy to be taken seriously as a classic TV series in my eyes. Much like the comedy of Friends, though, Mike & Molly ends up winning us over with adorable characters and really funny situations.

It isn't often that an action film which tries to defy its genre actually succeeds in doing so. Kong: Skull Island happens to come pretty close to succeeding.

A fascinating prologue rewrites some history and sets up an alternate universe in which the existence of a massive gorilla seems somewhat plausible.

Brie Larson (the Room star who blew audiences away with her performance of a mother forced to raise a child under terrible constraint) gives a wonderful performance which plays a large part in lifting this film out of the trash heap. At first, I was skeptical about her choice to take on the role of Mason Weaver. But after a breathtaking helicopter scene, her presence begins to make sense: Larson clearly sought a fun role after the depressing elements of Room. And she is able to have fun while still bringing a sense of immense presence through a performance that will have audiences laughing out loud. Her co-star, Tom Hiddleston, is equally funny as a witty tracker looking for riches. The final piece of the puzzle is a wonderful performance by Samuel L. Jackson as a vigilante of sorts.

Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts does a good job of pulling this all together. But the real star of the show behind the scenes was the sound technician for giving the film one of the greatest soundtracks since films like Watchmen and games like Mass Effect reignited my belief in the film soundtrack as an art.

The result is an exciting return to Kong's universe that reignites an otherwise wilting franchise. Audiences of most persuasions will appreciate this as a strong entry into the annals of genre-defying action cinema.

American Dad was a very good concept right from the beginning of this first season, but it took a few episodes for the show to really find its feet. By Roger Codger, the team have taken off.

While Haley's antics in the previous episode are hysterical, it is only when Roger is able to take on a character outside of the Smith household that this show really becomes excellent. The jokes become sharper and the stints become richer.

Stan is forced to let Roger out of the house when stress forces him into a coma, and the alien goes on a surprisingly wild adventure with a bunch of old women. The results must be seen, for words cannot do justice to the sophisticated hysterics and hysteria of this episode.

Overall, Seth McFarlan outdoes himself on the fifth episode of American Dad's first season. Roger Codger raises the bar and sets the standard for what will come later in American Dad.

When I heard that David Yates would direct a J. K. Rowling adaptation of her magical Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them book, I was excited. Here would be a snippet of how Newt Scamander collected his research and composed his textbook. Then I heard that it would be set in America, and my enthusiasm was dampened.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a very entertaining piece of cinema. It's depiction of American wizards in the Harry Potter Universe is fascinating for fans of the classic fantasy series; and its CGI is breathtaking in how the beasts are depicted. Furthermore, the way Newt Scamander's story is told shows the depth of Rowling's story telling abilities, and present Yates with his first opportunity to show us his version of Harry Potter outside of the constraints placed on him by his predecessors in the original series.

But the film is ultimately disappointing in its subject matter. Instead of taking the audience on the adventures behind the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them 'textbook', the film dreams up a plot divorced from the central intrigue of Rowling's source material. While Rowling does a sterling job at adapting her book for the screen, she fails to grasp the magnitude of the possibilities that it presents. Her plot is devoid of substance because it tries to dream up an unnecessary detour in Scamander's fact finding adventures.

So that leaves this film with a mid-line rating. The breathtaking CGI, Yates' competent direction, and Rowling's adequate translation onto the screen make for magical entertainment. But Rowling's failure to give the plot any substance leaves much to be desired.

Silent films are a strange object of consideration for the contemporary film critic. Some of them are classics, pieces of cinematic art which belong among the best films of all time and which must be seen by any serious film buff. Others are downright dreadful, only valuable as historical objects. It is in-between these two categories where A Midsummer Night's Dream's cinematic debut belongs.

Stage veteran Charles Kent, along with co-director J. Stuart Blackton, does an adequate job at bringing this legendary piece of dramatic literature to the silver screen for the first time. The theatre man brought a few of the bard's plays to the silver screen for the first time, with A Midsummer Night's Dream being his second after Anthony and Cleopatra a year earlier. Being his second adaptation, it doesn't do much in the way of directorial innovation.

However, the editing shows signs of some innovations that were taking place at the time. An early example of special effects was used to transform Bottom's head into an ass, while the fairies are made to appear and disappear using the same splicing effect. For this editing innovation and foresight alone, A Midsummer Night's Dream's cinematic debut is worthwhile.

While Drake's famous equation is common knowledge among those with any interest in the search for extraterrestrial life, there hasn't been enough focus on why it was an important landmark in the history of humankind. This documentary, commissioned by The Open University and produced by the BBC, goes a long way towards remedying this awkward situation.

The equation itself was a vital step towards wider acceptance of the concept of extraterrestrial life among the scientific community. However, telling the story of an equation poses certain challenges which could have led this TV film to be very bland. This was not the case, and the crew do a wonderful job of bringing the history behind the numbers to life with a sense of true excitement.

Director Tim Usborne does a fantastic job telling the story of this landmark equation through some incredible directorial work. His presence is never felt too overtly, which gives presenter Dallas Campbell a sense of control over the narrative woven through this documentary.

We are thus left with a compelling piece of television that adequately demonstrates why the Drake equation is such an important element of astrobiology.

Watching the first episode of Family Guy is like taking a time machine back to the Clinton administration. Not only does it give the world a snapshot of the grotesque underbelly of American culture as it stood just before the turn of the millennium, but it also establishes Family Guy as a television sensation.

All the show's trademark comedic devices are here: the random cutaway sequences; the grotesque slapstick American jokes; and the oddball socio-political commentary. Many of the tropes evident in Seth McFarlan's later work are here, too. The use of animals, freakish characters, and inanimate objects as major plot devices which pop up again in American Dad and Ted and its sequel, and the strong male archetype with a warped sense of patriarchal control over his family, present in American Dad, are examples of this trend.

The animation in the first episode is crude for the period, which is a disappointment. And the voice acting is inconsistent with later seasons, a problem seen in other adult animated series such as The Simpsons. The humour offsets these problems to a large extent, although it doesn't entirely eliminate them.

Overall, this is a solid start to what later became a fixture of American Television Culture, despite some strange flaws and a strange obsession with death that hangs over the rest of the season. I strongly recommend it to anybody with an interest in American animated adult television.

Careful What You Wish For is a good case study in the failings inherent in the Hollywood star system. The film is essentially star vehicle that is produced well but which fails to deliver anything substantial due to the lackluster performances of its leading actors around whom the film has been structured.

Nick Jonas plays Doug Martin, an adolescent without personality who falls for the gorgeous Lena Harper (Isabel Lucas), a married woman with a dark and devious plan to make big bucks fast. As a leading lady, Lucas does nothing more than showing us her very skinny body as she seduces her way into Jonas' very silly heart.

The film, directed by Elizabeth Allen Rosen, is not essentially a bad product. Rosen's direction is competent, the cinematography is pretty, editing is tight, the script holds up alright, and the production itself is of a good quality. There is a solid story arch that held my interest till the end. And it is a nice star vehicle for Lucas and Jonas. But the supposed stars have a very limited acting ability, even at the hands of a director who has a good grasp of her craft born from a long and stable career in television.

Unfortunately, all the potential of this film is lost through a leading couple who never quite arrive as the stars in the vehicle. Unless you are interested in learning from the mistakes made by Lucas and Jonas, you can safely give it a miss.

Direction: 6||Acting: 2||Cinematography: 7||Concept and delivery: 4|

Unfortunately, the world does contain directors who seemingly have no understanding of what a bad movie is. And Eduardo Schuldt happens to be one of them.

The Nutcracker Sweet is at best a very awkward update of Tchaikovsky's classic ballet. In reality, the movie belongs on the trash heap. Aside from interesting animation, there is very little to praise here.

The voice acting is cliché, cinematography feels awkward at best and Schuldt's direction seems to be so subtle as to almost disappear from the film entirely. And don't even get me started on how cliché packed the English script by Eileen Cabiling et al is.

Aronnax Animation Studios made a smart business decision when sending this unnecessary incarnation of the ballet classic straight to video. The company could almost be forgiven for allowing such an awkward excuse for a film to come into existence.

But alas, the world must still behold the monstrosity which is Eduardo Schuldt's 'The Nutcracker Sweet'. And for this, Aronnax Animation Studios deserve to be burnt at the stake.

Acting (voice): 3/10|Directing:1/10|Cinematography: 3/10|Story adaptation: 1/10.

This episode of the hit TV mini-series based on a Stephen King Novel follows the trend set by its predecessors. It's racy, intriguing and evident of potential, yet not developed enough to establish the show among the TV major-league.

After a passionate kiss during the missile hit, Joe and Norrie face the untouched dome with many of the townsfolk gathered around. Everybody is concerned: if a missile left the thing "smooth as a baby's but", then how will anybody ever get out? Meanwhile, Barbie & Jill share a moment that begins to establish a romantic connection between them, Junior goes on a manhunt for Angie, and riots break out across the CBD of Chester's Mill.

'The Endless Thirst' succeeds in establishing a real sense of foreboding as the town falls into complete disarray. Director Kari Skogland, of Fifty Dead Men Walking (2008) fame, is evidently well equipped to convey such chaos with the sense of foreboding that comes through on screen. She also directed 'Outbreak' (episode 4), and it is easy to see why she was chosen to direct the events of Chester's Mill's sixth day underneath the dome.

Mike Vogel (Barbie) gives a good performance, along with the alluring charm that Dean Norris brings to the show as 'Big Jim'. One never really knows what will be up Big Jim's sly and two-faced sleeve until he makes his move. If you pick up this series for no other reason than to see Norris tease out some great performances, then that will be reason enough.

While not completely satisfying, episode 1.6 of Under The Dome is worth watching for anybody who enjoys some soapy mellow-drama. Luckily, the development seen up until this point would suggest that this series matures with age.

Directing: 7/10||Cinematography: 5/10||Acting: 6/10||Overall: 6/10

Chris Columbus' faltering direction leaves much to be desired from this otherwise magical first entry into the Potter film franchise.

Steve Kloves delivers an inspired conversion of Rowling's classic first installment into a screenplay - giving much potential for a capable director to produce a magical film.

Unfortunately, Chris Columbus is not an example of such a director; he almost manages to destroy this script, delivering a painfully static, overly faithful interpretation of a timeless children's classic. Yes, Columbus does leave a sense of welcome innocence on the finished product, but only in the same way as he did with Home Alone.

Thankfully, an outstanding cast of British actors cleans some egg off the producer's faces. The magical casting department chose a cast who would deliver some fantastic performances. Richard Harris (Professor Dumbledore), Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall), Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) and John Hurt (Ollivander) all give staggering renditions of their timeless characters. Alan Rickman's Severus Snape proves to be the most incredible performance piece in this picture - he makes Snape his own, bringing all the malice, hidden bravery and dark sarcasm needed to perfectly portray his character.

Disregarding the Columbus blunder, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone proves itself to be a magical piece of cinema which will surely be enjoyed by audiences both young and old for many generations to come.

Directing: 1/10||Cinematography: 8/10||Acting:7/10||Verdict: 5.3/10

"Tonight's the night. It's going to happen again and again. Has to happen. Nice night. Miami is a great town. I love the Cuban food ... But I'm hungry for something different, now."

After discovering Dexter's hunger for blood, Miami Cop Harry Morgan decides to help his foster son to channel his urges for the greater good. Using a set of principles laid out by Harry to cover his tracks, Dexter stalks the night, killing the violent criminals of Miami who evade the justice system.

In the hands of an inexperienced writer, director or actor Dexter could very easily have been a dismissive flop which fed off the underbelly of B feature slasher films.

Producer Dennis Bishop, therefore, brought in the big guns. James Manos Jr. cut his teeth as the writer of the teleplay for season one of The Sopranos. Michael Cuesta directed five episodes of Six Feet Under before moving into the realm of cinema with the intense 12 and Holding. And Michael C Hall was also tied to Six Feet Under as David Fisher.

Manos expertly adapted the work of Jeff Lindsay, author of the books upon which the series is loosely based; delivering witty dialogue that is equal parts naively funny and spine-chillingly cold and calculated.

Hall takes full advantage of Mano's script; using it to endear the audience to his character. He gives us Dexter the Hero forcing the audience to admire what should be the sick criminal activities of a psychopathic serial killer.

Cuesta brings out the best in Hall, encouraging him to become Dexter. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast doesn't seem to have such deft direction yet. And it is here that the pilot falls short of the masterpiece debut it should be.

Otherwise, this pilot is a well-produced piece of work which is indicative of the award-winning eight season series which follows.

With Skyfall, Sam Mendes managed to save the new chapter in the Bond franchise from obscurity. With Spectre, the American Beauty auteur raises the bar to boiling point.

All the pieces of Bond's missions - the 'spectres' of his past - come together as an international criminal conglomeration from the early days of Ian Flemming's books known as Spectre. Daniel Craig does an outstanding job, under the guidance of Mendes, in bringing out a classic yet edgy version of Bond.

This chapter in the franchise has been all about Bond's origins, and in Spectre, we are brought into Bond's home and shown parts of his psyche that we haven't yet seen as an audience.

It's sad that this may be Craig's final outing as 007. But if it is, then he will have left on a high note which I don't believe has been achieved since the early days of Sean Connery.

Bravo to Mendes and Craig for bringing out the best Bond has to offer.

Martial arts films don't come with more action than Ong Bak.

Tony Jaa is by no doubt an astonishing fighter, and Prachya Pinkaew (director) & his cinematographer Nattawut Kittikhun do well in milking his talents for all their worth. The pair stun us with astonishingly detailed fight sequences, choreographed to perfection by Tony Jaa - the leading man himself.

Cinematography is pin sharp, and the Thanat Sunsin-Thanapat Taweesuk editing team fly the banner of their craft high with jaw dropping cuts and manipulations - foremost being ingenious use of instant replays.

All that being considered, Ong Bak falls far too short in an area arguably more important than technical mastery of filmmaking: the script is terrible. Gaps in the fighting sequences and landscape fills play out like a painful Jackie Chan overdub without the Chan.

Kittikhun manages to stun us with majestic landscape cinematography - which does somewhat make up for the shocking script; though cannot ever restore the potential destroyed by the shoddy framework.

Technically speaking, Ong Bak is convincing - it certainly lives up to its expectation as martial arts eye candy; though if story and depth are what you seek, then you can give it a miss.

But if mindless thrills portrayed with majestic technical mastery are what you seek, then Ong Bak is for you.

Comedies with original premises have a knack for notoriety, which often ends in frustrated disappointment. The Invention of Lying, brainchild of Ricky Gervais & Matthew Robinson, epitomizes this sad graveyard of half-hearted comedy.

Mark Bellinson (Ricky Gervais) lives in a world based on absolute truth - devoid of the wonderful little thing we know as the lie. His sad little life passes before our eyes, as he gets fired from his position at Lecture Films and rejected by the beautiful Anna McDoogles (Jennifer Garner). Things become gradually more exciting, when Mark stumbles upon the ability to talk about things that aren't true.

And this is where the fun and laughter ends.

Gervais & Robinson jump straight into a Hollywood safety net, directing a film which goes from ingenious to overtly stupid and average in the space of a breath.

There can be no denying that The Invention of Lying's premise is nothing short of brilliantly original and insightful. Conception of this premise is initially laugh-out-loud funny and carries through on the brilliance of the idea, bar a few incongruencies inherent within a world in which everything is identical to our own minus the inability to lie.

But the film descends into a pit of clichéd humor & religious satire that ends up being quite run of the mill. There is nothing special here, besides some genuinely funny moments in the beginning.

Here may be found the dull, heavily treaded territory of Adam Sandlerville (bar his brilliance in Punch Drunk Love). Think Water Boy meets Bubble Boy with a remote resemblance to Click thrown into a bad tasting stew. This is the kind of comedy that will leave you sleeping in a dry chair with a well contained bladder.

Unless you are a die hard Jonah Hill fan or a Ricky Gervais aficionado, this is a film that you can comfortably skip over in search of greener pastures.

Good Will Hunting shows us how personal growth and development should be captured on film. An excellent cast, led by a truly capable director, set this punchy drama apart from the herd.

Van Sant brings the relationship between Will Hunting (Matt Damon) - a gifted young janitor with no direction - and his washed out psychologist Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) out front and center.

Damon and Williams take on the challenge and present the audience with a deep and profound interaction; punctuated by strong emotion and subtle affection.

Hunting's relationship with the witty Skylar (Minnie Driver) takes shape around Maguire's interaction with Hunting. Driver proves a strong leading lady, providing her character with incredible insight and affection, while keeping the rough edges firmly in place.

Sharp camera work and toned down lighting bring an atmosphere of change to life in the film - while not shying away from depicting the grit and grind of daily life in blue collar Boston.

Expertly crafted and strongly executed, Good Will Hunting is certainly a coming of age drama for posterity.

Danny Boyle is definitely one of the more interesting directors in Hollywood; most of his filmography suggests a man struggling to deal with some kind of perverse relationship with suffering.

And of all his films, Trainspotting is the one which best exemplifies this strange need. Without a doubt Boyle's magnum-opus, this drug infested romp through the underbelly of Scotland takes us on a wild ride that is equal parts black comedy and plain strange and disturbing.

Renton (Ewan McGregor) is an Edinburgh lowlife scumbag trying desperately to throw off the rags of heroin addiction. But no matter how hard he tries, there seems to be no getting rid of the syringe.

McGregor gives the performance of a lifetime - he grabs us by the balls and refuses to let go until the final frame has disappeared. Trainspotting launched the actor straight up into the big time, and it isn't difficult to see why. One only wonders why there can't be more actors with the intense need to please the audience in such an intensely perverse way.

Trainspotting is a film that must be seen in one sitting, and that you will want to see again. The problem is that it is so disturbing, you won't really be able to watch it again.

And that is what makes it such an exciting film.