Reviews

I want to like Quentin's stuff again - his first two films are some of my favourites ever, and Jackie Brown was is an unappreciated slow burner of a gem - but he has lost me with a series of overlong vanity projects which only get a pass because of who directed them and the excellence (and significance of, for that matter) of his prior work. But success is meant to be built upon, not besides to, and his 21st century work - sans the admittedly good The Hateful Eight - is a testament to that.

Unfortunately, Once Upon a Time In Hollywood is no different. While it is the least bad of his bad films, it is still completely underwhelming.

The main problem is that it seems that Tarantino for whatever reason has become extremely sloppy as a writer, and to see the collapse in quality of his work from Pulp Fiction to this is almost painful to watch.

The film is once again overlong at nearly 3 hours - a runtime not justified whatsoever, especially with a character and plot this thin. Unless you're making War and Peace or Lord of The Rings, keeping films to 2 hours at most is usually wise. To quote Roger Corman 'No film should be longer than 90 minutes unless it has Papal dispensation'. If only Quentin could learn such wisdom. Or hire a decent editor, for that matter.

This is mainly because none of the characters have any arc to them, sans that of DiCaprio's, of which is resolved within the first 90 minutes and has no stakes or tension to it at all.

Robert Downey Snr. Noted that for any screenplay to work, a main character always needs to be 'in a hurry'. It seems like Tarantino forgot this basic rule, because nowhere in this film is there any legitimate stakes involved or goals to be reached. If there is no conflict in a story, there is boredom, and this movie is perhaps Tarantino's most boring outside of the equally dull Django Unchained. It doesn't help that all of the characters talk like Tarantino himself - even the children do, for goodness sake. It becomes an unintentional version of that scene in Being John Malkovich whereby the eponymous actor goes inside his own mind to find everyone there looks and talks like him, but without the clever writing and awkwardness that made that stuff worth it.

The weak plot itself doesn't help - the main instigator of the story (that being the unwise inclusion of the M. Familys and Sharon Tate - more on that later) doesn't start until an hour in, and runs out of steam by the end. Meanwhile all between this we are watching overlong Bruce Lee fight scenes and party parts and a lot of it indeed goes nowhere. I know Tarantino likes to use the term 'hangout movie' to describe stuff like this, but that is excusable in films which have strong enough characters to justify that style of filmmaking, like Five Easy Pieces or Clerks, for example. Far less so when the characters have no noticeable goals or any depth to them, with the only personality being of the actors who play them.

Meanwhile, it has legitimately nothing to say about the time period it takes place in, the movie industry in that time period or even the hippy counterculture it touches on. Why make it a period piece if you don't say anything about the period you place it in, especially given Quentin's love for that era of filmmaking as well? It is all a big missed opportunity, especially in light of how at least his other period pieces had something to say about their respective time periods, or used such a setting to aid the story. It seems that Tarantino is so concerned of portraying that era as idyllically as possible that he refuses to portray it in any other way than in a bland non-judgemental way.

So given that the story and characters are no good, all the while wasting its period setting for nothing, it seems that it couldn't get worse, could it?

Sadly it does. Oh God it does. It's now time to address the elephant in the room - the M. Familys. Now while I was always worried about that rearing its ugly head in this movie - whatever Tarantino does well, being subtle and in good taste isn't it, especially in most of his 21st century film in which sadistic violence goes way too far, too often for the sake of it - this movie unfortunately met that low bar and ran with it. In fact, with all the questionable controversial historical topics Tarantino has exploited for his films in the past - World War 2 and the American Civil War - this has to be the worst in terms of tone, misjudgement and simple taste alone.

Why, dear reader I hear you ask? It's because the Family themselves, instead of being the dangerous cult that they were, are portrayed as dim witted hippies at best, and as Saturday morning cartoon villains at worst. That seems to me to be totally tasteless given how evil they actually were, and how recent the events actually were. Compare this to his other portrayals of this stuff. In Inglorious Basterds, the German soldiers there are portrayed fairly realistically given what happened (many of them being basic soldiers and nothing more) and the true villains were at least portrayed as nasty slime who could have actually been, and not cartoonish bad guys. Compare it to this film, whereby the M. Family Family and the Tate murders is the entire impetus for at least the second half and eats a good chunk of the film. Add to that the fact that the cult members in the film are all the real life ones, as well as these events being far more recent than the aforementioned WW2, and it makes all the worse. Meanwhile Tate herself has little role, and few scenes as well - not to mention how they get an actress who doesn't look like her, which is quite distracting when she watches one of her actual films in-movie - making it a waste of her character, and undermining her tragedy in that way as well. Way to go, Quentin.

Meanwhile, their deaths in the film makes the problem far more damning. All of them are extremely violent and probably aren't too far off the Jim VanBebber version of this tale (albeit with a far higher budget), and feel all in very bad taste, given both that those involved were real people and that it directly changes the coarse of history (Sharon Tate lives, in case you didn't know). It once again feels rather rotten and morally bankrupt, especially given how recent this stuff was, and how badly it pales in comparison to the aforementioned period pieces that QT has done - mainly that with Inglorious Basterds, WW2 German soldiers have already been the jokey and OTT bad guys in several movies and video games at this point, as well as how in Django, none of the people involved were real. And given that this film has no sense of humour or tongue-in-cheek elements to speak of much, of which would have gone some way to justify the inclusion of the M. Familys and Sharon Tate.

It all reminds me of comic book writer Grant Morrison criticising his fellow alumni Frank Miller (another Tarantino surrogate! Why does it keep coming back to that? Never mind.) when he was writing his graphic novel Holy Terror as a Batman story. There, Morrison stated that it was 'decadent indulgence when real terrorists are killing real people in the real world'. That is as true for QT as it is for his chum Frankie boy - given how serious the M. Family murders actually were, and the deaths and horror caused, it is beyond inappropriate to portray in such a dumbed down, comic book-esque fashion. Now this stuff is undeniably tricky, and while I'm glad he at least had the hutzpah to get approval from Sharon's sister Debra Tate (and I'm not for one second doubting her judgement here), the fact that he went for this at all speaks rather poorly to him, and his overall taste. I just can't wait for his inevitable film on the next tragedy he wants to turn in to exploitation sleaze.

But the reason that the rating isn't significantly lower is that it has good points, and it's main crime is that (sans the M. Family stuff), it's just incredibly boring and not very interesting. It is bland rather than annoyingly offensive and evil, like his worst work in the Kill Bill movies and Django Unchained.

The good points are here meanwhile. The acting, as expected from Tarantino, is great. This even includes the nepotist Maya Hawke who does a great job of playing herself (as a ditzy young hippie, of course!). Meanwhile, the film is very well shot, and the period detail is definitely the most on point it has been for any of Tarantino's period pieces. Including a good Bruce Lee lookalike and Damien Lewis being on point as Steve McQueen was a nice touch. And while there isn't much character development on display, that which is there is much welcomed - especially that of DiCaprio's when it comes, making it the most entertaining parts of the movie as a result.

But overall, this is weak and Tarantino on his bad form again. It is overlong non-period piece with weak characterisation and storytelling, which in no way justifies its nearly 3 hour runtime. Meanwhile, it's portrayal of the M. Familys perhaps is the worst and most misjudged one of that case in movie history, and definitely the worst of QT's period pieces. It is well-acted and shot, but all of that can't polish a turd. It is a shame, given how talented he was once was, and The Hateful Eight showed signs of what he could be. But for now, we're stuck with this. Hopefully his last movie will be much better than this.

Wow. It finally happened. Quentin Tarantino made a good movie again. After several years of slacking since his 1990s heyday, with a series of films that ranged from abysmal to mediocre, he has finally made something salvageable. And while this isn't great by any means, it still shows promise and why QT was such a force to be reckoned with in the 1990s.

But, on a weirder note, let's start with the bad. To paraphrase the late great Ronnie James Dio, let's not give Quentin complete credit there since much of what was wrong with his other films still rears its ugly head here.

The plot and characters could have - and in the case of a nearly three hour long mystery thriller should have - been better crafted than this. Admittedly, the latter has been better than Tarantino has done in several years, as while they're often two dimensional, at least there's some depth and understanding as to what is going on about them, and their motivation, as opposed to the 'cyphers for Tarantino's adolescent movie-angst fixation' of previous entries. That being said, they aren't meaty enough for us to get invested in them, and sometimes are too unsympathetic when some die for us to care. Any interest in some of these characters is usually given due to the gravitas of the actors playing them (and to be fair to Quentin, bad performances in his movies are very rare, and are usually limited to his annoying cameos), but more on that later.

The plot itself, while initially interesting, doesn't fully work, and completely implodes in to a plot whirlpool by the end, needing too many plot holes and contrivances to fully work, not to mention that any distrust that triggers the initial conflict that the story relies on work doesn't begin until an hour in, and worse still, comes unnaturally, clearly being needed to get the movie going.

Meanwhile, other ugly trends from his earlier films from Kill Bill onwards still remain. It is overlong at nearly three hours for something that needed, at most, two hours to tell. Such a move may have been justified in a theatre setting of which this feels very much like (Tarantino himself admitted that he himself is working a stage adaptation of this work), but not in a movie format, where it feels really overlong. Granted, it isn't boring and is at least consistently engaging throughout, so that's a plus.

There is also the crude and the crass as well, in particular the Samuel L. Jackson flashback scene, which feels like an immature 12-year-old wrote the script at that point, not a two-time Oscar winner. Meanwhile, there is also crude stereotypes that will make you want to cringe - casein point, QT's blunt hatred of Southerners, given that every one of them in movie is either evil or untrustworthy at best, or the Mexican bad guys that are so crude in their stereotyping that even certain former Presidents would blush.

Despite all of that, this movie is definitely worth seeing, especially if you are a Tarantino fan. Why?

Several reasons in fact.

Firstly, as mentioned earlier, the film isn't a boring slog throughout most of its runtime, and for something nearly three hours long, that is pretty impressive. As an audience member, I was always engaged and intrigued as to where the plot was going, especially in the unexpected turns in took, which is what any good mystery thriller should do.

And it is an interesting and engaging premise. Again, it doesn't fully work, but it is entertaining enough to keep it going at least, and the characters at least have enough to them and the actors so good that the suspenseful moments towards the end genuinely work, and it leads to a pretty satisfying ending in my view. It's a latter day Reservoir Dogs to be exact, and while nowhere near as good as that classic, this definitely holds its own against many of its boring contenders as far as other big budget thrillers go.

And my God, the acting is very strong all around. The Tarantino regulars - Kurt Russell, Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Zoe Bell etc. - are strong as always, and carry the material very well even when the plot and script is sometimes lacking. This also extends to much of the other cast as well, mainly that of Bruce Dern, of who gives perhaps the best performance of the film. Even some of the odder casting choices, especially that of Channing Tatum, works surprisingly well, given how strong the performances are across the board. Only Jennifer Jason Leigh - ironically the only performance here to receive an Oscar nod - lets the side down slightly, being too annoying and over the top for her own good. But even then, that did make her character's on screen death admittedly more enjoyable because of that, so there's that at least.

There are also some nice improvements compared to Tarantino's other works. While overlong again, the film is at least entertaining and not boring. There is more depth to this film than most of them since Jackie Brown, which means that the moments of suspense and intrigue work for that reason. Finally, the gory violence is actually used pretty sparingly here, in comparison all of his other 21st century work, of which was overly sadistic and sleazy for its own good. The gruel and blood here is at least enjoyably gooey as opposed to needlessly cruel, and serves the story quite well too.

Finally, stylistically it really works too. The cinematography is beautiful, even on simple widescreen TVs. Ennio Morricone's score is very well done here, and much deserving of the Oscar it received. It adds a lot of excitement to the movie, as well as adding much needed atmosphere at points.

So overall, while not great, it is a solid return to form for Tarantino. Much of the problems that plagued his earlier films still remain, but much of the other major problems are at least improved upon, and it is an entertaining, bloody and fun good time. Definitely worth a watch and highly recommended, especially for Tarantino's fans.

One of the better TV documentaries in recent years. While I usually get annoyed with similar types of this kind of thing - as they often conflate the views of hateful bigots to more mainstream views, in order to vilify them - this is definitely a great one to watch. Intelligent, balanced and uncompromising, this may not be easy viewing, but it is important nonethless.

Perhaps the most obvious thing to praise is the balance that this documentary takes, highlighting that while the KKK is undoubtedly an evil and pernicious organisation, not all of those who join are necessarily evil, and are more often than not feel that there are good things about joining such an organisation. In this case the Missouri chapter of this current iteration is used for this, highlighting that for those who are young who join it, it offers a sense of belonging and stability in an ever increasingly atomised US. Meanwhile, it also highlights how the then recent race riots in Ferguson over the justified shooting of Michael Brown have made this chapter in particular one of the fastest growing in the country, due to how scared people are of the increasing mayhem going on and feel that they are out of answers. This is good, because while it shows that this organisation as the evil stain on society that it is, there are legitimate reasons that people feel compelled to join it. It avoids open full scale condemnation of its participants, and pities them above anything else.

That being said, the show isn't afraid to call out the organisation for its continuingly disgusting behaviour. In particular, it highlights how the KKK overall is still happy to be horribly evil to those it sees as the enemy. Casein point, the doc takes note of the brutal 1998 murder of James Byrd Jr. By KKK members based in Jasper, Texas. That section is rather haunting, and highlights what a dangerous organisation the Klan still is, and could be again if it ever came back to mainstream prominence. Other examples of such behaviour include the head of the Missouri branch openly threatening the Ferguson rioters with violence, and the further acceptance by some of those interviewed of a possible racial conflict in the future, held up by their moronic white supremacist beliefs. It isn't afraid to call out the supposed 'modernisation' of the Klan when such backwards beliefs, often with violent consequences, play out in such a fashion.

Despite how excellent it for the most part is, I feel that there are some niggles. Most notably, there could have been a broader scope as to where such racial hatred comes from in the first place to give it more depth, but that was probably not possible, due to the limitations put on the filmmakers. Meanwhile, the slight skimming over on the events of the Michael Brown shooting is slightly annoying, given how it was more complex than the simple racial dynamics the doc puts out. Also, as a metalhead, the sneering attitude of the presenter about how a Klansman's taste in music is 'out of touch with modern culture' because he prefers heavy metal to rap is slightly insulting, especially in the context of who he's interviewing.

But overall, this is an excellent documentary. It is well balanced, interesting and unafraid to be honest about certain topics. If you want to understand the increasing, and often sadly deadly, racial tensions in the United States as they sit right now, this is perhaps one of the best examinations of such a phenomenon. It isn't always easy viewing, but it is vital in today's climate.

Ah, another 'classic' from the Beeb exploring the wonderful world of identity politics. Who could live without them, eh?

In all seriousness, this is yet another episode in the continuing subgenre of the examining bigoted people in society as a way to conflate their views with the mainstream views of others which they have to share. Sometimes, they can be pretty funny in exposing legitimate bigots whose egos are too big for their own good (see the Dispatches programme with a young Mark Collett for that).

Otherwise, they're just boring and uninteresting. This is especially true for BBC works in that particular genre as they've become so one-sided and uninteresting, not to mention cringe worthy with their often inexperienced and dense hosts, that they're insulting to watch. I can remember watching a slew of these on BBC Three when they aired (shortly before it got cancelled... can't gather why with quality programming like this), and they were pretty dire all round. This isn't as bad as the cringeworthy We Want Our Country Back, but it's mostly poor and offers little insight in to such subject matter, due to the host's own biases and the dumbed down nature in which such information is conveyed.

Perhaps the most obvious example is an experiment whereby the host gets a few people to deliver doughnuts on the street and enter stores, to see how people reacted to certain groups in society. While the information confirmed that certain groups get treated differently based on certain characteristics, there is no further analysis of why this is the case. There is no mention as to how certain groups could be perceived due to stereotypes that pervade them, often based unfortunately on inconvenient facts the show daren't touch to not alienate its left wing audience.

Meanwhile, it never asks why some people may have such prejudices in the first place either, assuming people are just racist cranks is a good enough explanation. Her showing up at an English Defence League rally (an already dead organisation by the time this documentary came out) and complains about some of the bigotry and football hooligan esque violence is one thing, and she does have some sympathy in that regard. But she never touches upon why people are drawn to such groups in the first place. Nothing about say mass immigration (a taboo only recently broken by both UKIP and Brexit, which showed that the electoral majority were not in favour of such a thing - it's very telling that this show came out before that happened, given how it is presented here) and grooming gangs getting ignored by several police forces not wanting the 'racist' slur thrown at them is discussed, as that would have added a level of depth or humanity this sorely needed to be more then just more left wing agitprop. But nope. Simply say that those who go to such rallies make her 'uncomfortable' and that is good enough. Great job, lads!

Finally, it advocates the very Orwellian measure of using technology to remove 'unconscious biases' from yourself. In other words, brainwash yourself to rid yourself of natural instincts that don't necessarily hurt anyone, provided they're not acted upon to either harm others or justify actual bigotry. The host - 'journalist' Mona Chalabi - seems thrilled at this prospect, calling it a 'privilege' to take the 'test' which checks for it. This is deeply chilling to advocate for, given the inherently authoritarian nature this has planted in it, not to mention that given that this network has advocated in the past for kids to not recognise gender differences and has joked about white people being killed for their race, it seems rather troubling is all I can really say.

However, it isn't all bad, as some of the information can be interesting, and genuinely surprising. Mainly this comes to the unconscious bias malarkey that springs up, which while leading to a sinister conclusion, yields some interesting facts. This mainly comes in dating app data, which shows how certain men prefer women of different races and not their own. It also does show some of these bigots for what they are, mainly that of Jack Buckby, whose racist views on 'homelands' seem not far off from anything a fringe commentator may say. He's apparently since 'reformed', but it's definitely hard not to feel uncomfortable watching that part.

But overall, it isn't that good. Poorly researched, handled and one sided to the point of boredom. Skip this and watch something more enlightening and educational please.

What went wrong with one of the most inspiring and original directors of the 1990s? A man who used to produce some of the best films of their respective era is now reduced to endless vanity without much in the way for entry if you're not a movie nerd and/or an obsessive surrounding exploitation cinema. Django Unchained - his worst film since the atrocious Kill Bill saga - is the latest in this decline of quality, and it's about time to admit that Tarantino's talent is on the wane.

The main problem is that the film is too damn long. Actually, scratch that - the problem is not that it's long, as many great movies are similar length here, including some of Tarantino's best. What is the important is not that it's long by itself, but that it's that length with a series of characters and story far too weak to justify its runtime. While similar generic revenge stories may be bad, they're not three hours long, nor are they widely overpraised due to the director involved, who only gets positive praise for his work nowadays due to the goodwill he earned in the 90s, and the declining standards in the meantime allowing for anything that is slightly different to be heavily overrated.

And boy, are the characters thin. Generic video game characters have more complexity than this, and the rare moments of depth - Django being reluctant to initially kill for example - are never explored, to focus on more references, and 'oh isn't that Franco Nero, how quaint' moments that eat up the film to endless annoyance. On that, it helps to undermine the film as well; when the Brittle brothers are killed 40 minutes into the movie, there is no tension of satisfying payoff, as they weren't developed enough as villains to make me care or loathe them as an audience member. Like Inglorious Basterds, Tarantino expects the loathsome nature of the bad guys - them being slave holders - enough to make them hateful enough, instead of showing us so. But that's mistaken; not only are they heavily underdeveloped, but Tarantino never gives us a sense of how awful they actually are, making their deaths unsatisfying and uninteresting.

The same goes for the death of Candie and the several action scenes, as there is no character development to speak of, we don't care about whether these characters live or die, making any attempts at tension or excitement fall flat on their face. In comparison to say Sam Peckinpah's best work - who Tarantino earns a lot of debt to, but lacks the talent to pull it off - there is no development to the villains to make them truly hateful. In Straw Dogs for instance, the crucial rape scene in that film makes the violent deaths of those involved worth it and exciting, because it has been earned by the film's end. There is nothing like that in Django Unchained, given its lack of focus or smarts there.

And it isn't clearly who this movie is for, given that it happily insults every possible demographic imaginable. For white people, it insinuates through one line of dialogue that killing them is fine based on such characteristics. Southeners the film takes particular relish to, with them either being portrayed as evil or dumb, reflecting the Hollywood elite sneering attitude towards them, presumably because they're traditional in many ways. Black people too aren't spared; their hero is subservient to a white man throughout the majority of the film, and the rest are either offensive caricatures - especially Samuel L. Jackson's cringey role - or victim characters, and that's without going in to the films love of certain words, which are excessive. Australians also are sneered at, with Tarantino's lack of effort in doing a convincing accent. At least he gets blown up with dynamite by the end. A payback to the audience whose patience he was testing at that point.

Meanwhile, there is little else to recommend the film. The action, as I've said, lack tension due to no character or plot development, and is just gory carnage with no payoff. Scenes go on and on forever, and often feel pointless (the high-larious Klan skit - just look at those dumb rednecks! Ha, ha! anyway, here's more uses of the n word, everybody!), making the film more ungodly dull than it previously was. The acting is good, but these people are given nothing to do at worst, and even at best, actors like Leonardo DiCaprio are great, but often chew the scenery and little more. The only reason the rating isn't lower is because it was well made enough to be impressive, and that the acting was good. It isn't something like The Room for instance, which lacks both, and is the best worst movie ever made from that, because it has an entertainment and passion factor this lacks. Tarantino is on autopilot, and is so painfully obvious to.

But does it fix any of the problems Tarantino's films have had since Jackie Brown? Well yes one; the sadistic violence, which had consistently been a problem from the Kill Bill movies onwards is fixed slightly. It's still far too graphic and sleazy for it's own good, but there is some restraint to the more violent scenes, and they aren't allowed to go on for extended lengths of time, unlike his earlier films, which is good. But if that's the only thing he's ever so slightly fixed, with the other major problems remaining - weak characters, overlong, callbacks which don't help anything - than he's clearly not trying anymore.

And that's the sense I get while watching this; Tarantino is no longer trying anymore. He knows he can put any old rubbish out there, and it'll still garner endless critical praise, box office receipts by the millions and awards by the bucketload, because of all of the goodwill he received from the 1990s. But goodwill is meant to be built on, not built besides to, and garbage like this is a testament to that.

One of the more obvious problems in society is that of being able to handle its more excessive multicultural elements. Accusations of racism are charged at basic societal norms, certain crimes are ignored at fears of whipping up community tensions and huge community complaints over immigration and so on are either at best ignored, or at worst dismissed with accusations of 'bigotry' and 'racism'. Is there any hope here?

In this excellent documentary, Trevor Phillips and co do a great job at exploring the societal taboos of our time, or as they crudely put it 'breaking every equality law in the book', giving viewers finally the truth over these issues, and how possibly to tackle them in future.

Many of the truths can be uncomfortable, but it is about time they're addressed. This includes how often black Britons and some from immigrant backgrounds are more likely to specific crimes, the troubles of radical Islam that sweep much of the country, white flight taking place in areas like London, Pakistani grooming gangs being covered up among. They're hard hitting, and their mature handling leaves food for thought as well.

Admittedly, there is still some lefty tropes in there, like implying that racism is still rife in football due to the lack of black managers, which is clearly not the case, especially when compared to the 1980s for instance. It's one of the few weaknesses of an otherwise excellent show.

Meanwhile, other sections are really powerful, and can move one to anger at the level of recklessness our society has handled it. Whether it be the politicians refusing to admit that Philips was right with his comments about 'sleepwalking into segregation' comments following the 7/7 bombing, to the refusal to play truthful clips about Pakistani grooming gangs to schoolchildren, it does make the blood boil. The suggestions involved, mainly that of desegregated schools for example, at least some light against the darkness.

He also interjects to; having been a former enforcer, as he puts it, of political correctness, he admits now how such an ideology went wrong, and what he could do to fix it. It adds some real perspective and maturity to the piece, making it much more compelling. If only other so-called 'progressive' would take Trevor's route on occasion, maybe then they could reclaim working class support that they have lost in recent years.

Not to mention the interviews are particularly engaging. From the charismatic Nigel Farage at his peak, to the mask slipping on Tony Blair's supposedly friendly demeanour when challenged on anything, it adds a lot to the show, and often shows the legitimate points both sides of the debate have here, and fair play to Trevor for attempting balance in that regard.

But overall, this is a fantastic work by Phillips. Challenging, in-depth and mature with its themes, it is a brilliant examination of many of the big issues in society few (including the cowardly politicians that refuse to touch them) dare to tread on. And it's very telling how little we've progressed to solving these issues 5 years on that is documentary still remains very relevant today.

Does innocent until proven guilty matter much anymore in society? Do high profile figures, even those who have since passed this mortal coil, deserve a fair trial? Do we automatically believe alleged victims, instead of taking what they say with a massive pinch of salt?

If you think these questions deserve actual reasoned debate over dogma, you'll hate Leaving Neverland, a film designed to exploit the MeToo movement to push unfounded claims of paedophilia of Michael Jackson, something he was never convicted for in life, and is used . And no, I'm not a huge fan, especially given that his classic 80s hits and the talent displayed on them was great, but his 90s stuff ranged from dire to boring. That being noted, an innocent man deserves defending, especially in a society that while hanging Jackson, happily entertains the likes of Jimmy Page, Roman Polanski and Peter Tatchell, despite their provably contemptible behaviour.

The overall problem is that much of these allegations are unfounded at best (like the kids being invited in Michael's bedrooms at Neverland Ranch, something disputed), or at worst provably untrue (like the often cited railway controversy). It's heavily one-sided, which given the subject matter is problematic. A rebuttal documentary called Chase The Truth pointed out that the film was like a court case without the defence being involved, which is accurate. Very tellingly, major witnesses like Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes who disputed the main allegations, and were major reasons in the collapse in the first trial, are left out and only given mere mentions halfway through.

Meanwhile, there are various holes in their stories here. I won't go in to all of them, but some specific ones stand out as odd. Take for example how both of them, involved in the original court case didn't decide to speak out then, despite the high profile of the man involved and how they lied under oath. Or that the merchandise somehow burnt at the end had been sold previously at auction, according to Julian's Actions. Or the time differences that don't add up in some cases. I could go on.

On top of that, some of the information that does spring up works against the filmmakers. The mainly consists of the point in Wade referring to his jealously of being left out of the Black And White video, after Culkin was chosen. Throughout, a bitter sense of anger exists with Wade, suggesting that partially, these accusations are done out of spite, not truth. Other areas suggest this too, leading to more doubt over the whole ordeal.

From a filmmaking perspective as well, there's not much talent on display. The slow pacing, overlong runtime and occasionally odd editing already weaken the viewing experience of a film based on foundations this flimsy, often making it a boring and tedious chore to sit through. Nice shots of Neverland ranch, among other US locations, and aren't enough to make up for it.

So overall, Leaving Neverland as a documentary is questionable; its allegations are flimsy, and the lack of any opposition for a subject as heavy as this is troubling, especially with confirmed agendas involved from director Dan Reed who openly believes them, allowing for little dissident to take place. As a movie, it's completely tedious and overlong, and the occasional stylistically flourishes don't redeem it. As a statement on society, it's contemptible; being innocent til proven guilty matters, even in these days of the ongoing witch hunt, hijacking the legitimate lessons we need to learn from MeToo. It isn't totally irredeemable, but it isn't worth checking out either.

It's interesting as a curiosity piece, and if you believe the allegations. Beyond that, skip.

How often is that that a bad, usually awful film can actually redeem itself with a half decent twist at the end? It's a trick as rare finding a lost artefact, but it can happen. While there are various examples one can point to for this to happen (like The Hunger Games: Catching Fire or Cloverfield), the specific example being discussed here is Pandorum. Let's take a look at this case study.

Now there are various bad aspects of the film which have earned its rightly deserved negative press. The acting ranges from average to underwhelming, most notably with main players Ben Foster and Dennis Quaid. The former is bland to the point of monotony, and the latter while usually reliable overplays it to the point of hammy.

Not to mention how utterly redundant the movie is as well. The movie rips off various other sci-fi, fantasy and horror movies in a way that seems like it was trying to create a blend to build something new, but instead is about as unoriginal as it gets. The ship that occupies most of the film heavily resembles the Nostromo from Alien. The bad guys, despite being designed by the Stan Winston Company, heavily resemble the Orcs from Lord Of The Rings if they were more pasty white. In other words The Hobbit type. The idea of paranoia in a confined space not to mention outer space has been explored before, with the likes of The Shining and Solaris.

However it isn't just good movies Pandorum steals from. Oh no, the film is so derivative that it snatches elements from bad films too, making it feel furtherly lame. The main badass lady character in the film is a direct rip off of Alice from the awful Resident Evil movies, while the compartments among other aspects of the ship resemble those of prior laughably bad sci-fi horror Event Horizon. The fact that the film has Paul W. S. Anderson as producer who worked on both films isn't a surprise. On top of this, the various lame jump scares used throughout the film are not too dissimilar from the various teen slashers over the last few decades. Given that this film belongs to such a compelling genre like sci-fi horror, one would expect more originality in the initial plot threads.

Not to mention how unexciting it all is. There is no tension simply because the characters are far too two dimensional and stock to be compelling, all the while the lame jump scares and occasional bad lighting are clear attempts to frighten the audience in cheap ways, attributing to how bad the director is at building it through any other means. It leaves the film overall an uninspired mess of which fails to frighten, unnerve and mostly entertain the viewer.

So why the high rating? Well, it is because the movie actually has the balls to take an unexpected turn at the end and actually give us a nice addition to the presumably overdone genre of sci-fi horror. That being that the end twist is that one of the characters suffers with split personality disorder, of which is partially linked to a disease nicknamed Pandorum, hence the title of the film.

While it makes the film arguably furtherly derivative of the various films that have already played this card in their storylines (from Psycho to Fight Club), this element of it being done in sci-fi horror is new and adds a decent twist in an otherwise pretty crappy movie.

So I can recommend Pandorum? Not really. the derivative nature of the film, coupled with the lack of a compelling plot or characters for the most part fails to gain the attention of the viewer and therefore make it mostly not worth your while. However, the creative direction it takes towards the end is worth waiting for, and makes the experience all worth it. It is better than its cousin for Event Horizon that's for sure, of which is the opposite to this film: mostly fine but ruined by its last segment. Not bad, but not remarkable either. Certainly not worth a sequel though, despite what some Facebook groups would have you believe.

Here are a list of ingredients of which mixed together makes for an altogether disgusting stew of a bad thriller movie.

Here goes:

1. Have unremarkable performances from your leads to disengage you from the narrative and therefore not create tension.

2. Have those same characters occupy boring archetypes (like a struggling couple as in this film) of which leads to recycled plotlines, making the film feel redundant.

3. Have these characters occupy a unique story, sucking all the life and fun out of it, making it feel all the more unoriginal.

4. Have said characters make stupid decisions (like about using their phones) to elongate the plot as opposed to creating an exciting story or characters.

5. Create false tension through numerous regurgitated storylines and plot threads instead of writing strong enough characters or a strong enough story to carry it and create actual tension alone.

6. Have contrived scenes (including some related to the wife character being pregnant) to again create false tension and make us feel empathy of which the film has not earned towards these characters, given how uninteresting and unlikable they have been up to this point.

7. Have the bad guy act moronically, including a scene whereby he flees the area, even though he has a couple HELD HOSTAGE of who could flee once he did that. Have the main characters not jump at this opportunity either.

8. Have an out of nowhere scene to trick you into thinking that the person on screen is the bad guy when it isn't, to develop a mystery that has previously been woefully underdone.

9. Have the end scene have a twist so out of place all the while so predictable, as the mystery of the villain hasn't been developed at all up until this point.

10. Don't end your film. Leave it on a cliffhanger of which will be mistaken for ambiguity and intrigue by imbeciles, but is clearly the writer giving up because he has run out of money or doesn't know how to end his film.

In other words, that is this movie in a nutshell. Avoid it at all costs.

Ever since films first starting being produced, many of them have had a political agenda, whether it be subtle or Leni Riefenstahl levels of obvious. However, that aspect alone shouldn't affect your judgment of the film overall, as you are reviewing the film, not the viewpoint it represents. Take Citizenfour for example, the documentary about Edward Snowden. Despite the prejudice I personally have for Snowden, I still had an open mind to the film. However, it is a badly made and boring film which lacks any structure, making it one of the most overrated films in quite some time.

The documentary focuses on Edward Snowden, the whistle-blower who leaked NSA's surveillance activities to the world. Here, we see his leaking of the story to The Guardian and him hiding out around the world in order not to be caught by the US government. On top of this, there is also footage of NSA building surveillance sites and worldwide governments trying to stop the NSA's spying. While it sounds compelling, the film is anything but. One main reason for this is that a lot of the film takes place inside Snowden's Hong Kong hotel room, without much happening, outside of Snowden watching TV and getting dressed. Whoopee.

It also doesn't help that the film is poorly structured. Besides the initial boredom you'll experience from watching Edward Snowden in his hotel room, the film also randomly puts in the aforementioned footage of the NSA building these sites and of the foreign governments without much context besides the film's obvious message (government surveillance is bad). It's put together in a very sloppy manner, and while I understand the circumstances behind this (director Laura Poitras had the pressure of the authorities finding her), it demonstrates the lack of experience Poitras has. It just makes you wish she would have handed the footage to someone with more skill, as it would have made the film more coherent.

Another problem is how overly one-sided this film is. I understand that many documentaries are biased towards a certain view, but at least they often consider the other side of the debate. For example, a good documentary like The Times Of Harvey Milk may portray people like Milk's assassin Dan White and John Briggs (of the controversial Briggs Initiative) as morally bankrupt, but also tries to explain their actions and humanise them to an extent. Not here though. Not only does the film ignore the other viewpoint, but portrays it as completely dangerous and volatile. So as you can imagine, there's no mention as to why the system was set up (in order to prevent disasters like 9/11 from repeating themselves), why the authorities are after Snowden (as he threatened national security) or the negative consequences of Snowden's actions (potentially giving terrorists a loophole to go through in order to harm innocent lives - the fact that the Boston marathon bombers are mentioned at one point makes this factor more important).

It also portrays Snowden in an overtly perfect manner, almost saintly, for his exposure, as if he was a kind young man wanting to protect the American people. So factors like how he didn't even read all of the documents he leaked or how thanks to him, Al-Qaeda are now changing their communication methods in order not to get caught by the NSA don't enter the conversation. Even some things that are mentioned in the film unintentionally work against him, mainly how he has put his own family at risk, and doesn't even try to protect them. On top of this, you can't help but feel that some of the criticisms of the NSA's actions in the film are filled with hypocrisy, mainly that of the Brazilian government, a country with higher internet censorship than the United States. I wouldn't mind the politics as much if the film was good, as I have enjoyed films in the past but don't necessarily agree with their ideology. Citizenfour however is extremely dull and boring, making the questionable politics even more problematic.

In conclusion, Citizenfour is a very bad documentary which is poorly structured, tedious and sloppily handled, and is a blatant Leni Riefenstahl-esque propaganda piece for Snowden, that not only glorifies one side and ignores the other, but demonizes that same side as well. It is also notable for something that is becoming a major problem in our culture as a whole: the glorification of criminals in the media. There's no problem if you think Snowden was in the right, but all too often, people are praised and martyred in the media through their behaviour, despite being dangers to society, leading to the silencing of those who criticise them, regardless of their legitimate points. Usually this applies to traitors like Snowden who are treated as heroes as well as terrorists like the IRA and many Jihadists being excused as martyrs, both of which undermine the serious consequences of their actions. On top of this, we see gangsters like the Kray Twins being made out as folk heroes and common thugs like Mark Duggan & Michael Brown being seen as innocent victims. All of this shows how criminals are portrayed as heroes, which encourages both the infliction and support of illegal behaviour through their media endorsement, meanwhile we see the constant lynching of groups like the police and the NSA for protecting a free society. This not only divides people to antagonize one another but also makes people forget who the real bad guys are, leading to a society based on lies and deceit, rather than truth and honesty. This film (along with its undeserved media acclaim and Oscar win) are a testament to this, showing that society is confused as to where our priorities lie and who are the bad guys truly are. Because of this, I suggest that you skip Citizenfour, as not only is it cruddy agitprop, but as it glorifies a potential traitor, makes it rotten to the core.

An anthology film is often an interesting watch. Seeing as how multiple directors come together to create a project, if often gets people curious as to how each director's individual style meshes with the others, and what the finished film is like because of that. Sadly, most of the time, anthology films fail miserably, as the styles of each director are too different from one another to truly gel, meaning that while there may be standout parts here and there, they often don't work as complete films. Four Rooms unfortunately is one of the prime examples of this. While nowhere near as bad its initial hostile critical reaction would have you believe, the film is still very problematic.

The story is that Ted the Bellhop is asked to look after a hotel during New Year's Eve and while there has to deal with multiple situations including a convent of witches, a hostage situation involving an angry husband, babysitting for a gangster's children & a bunch of drunken Hollywood stars and directors having a very dangerous bet. That is the basic story of the film, with four segments in the film directed by a different person for each. Connecting these stories is Ted the Bellhop, who is one of the film's major problems. Tim Roth delivers one of his worst performances to date as Ted, hamming it up every chance he gets, and gets annoying rather quickly. While the film is a comedy, it isn't as wacky or as farcical as Roth plays it, lacking the restraint and subtly that all the other actors have, which clearly shows that he wasn't well directed, acting like something out of Fawlty Towers, and considering the seriousness of some scenes, feels widely out of place. All of this makes Ted not only not funny, but very annoying and hard to care for, and you'll wish for him to go away as soon as possible.

Each story varies in quality, although none of them are better than decent. The first one is The Missing Ingredient (directed by Allison Anders), whereby Ted has to have sex with a witch in order to create the ingredient needed in order to reverse the spell put on the coven's goddess Diana 40 years prior. It's about as ridiculous as it sounds. While it may appeal to some art-house fans, it is very corny, silly and cheesy. It is watchable though, acted well enough (Roth being the exception) and has a quirky charm to it that keeps you entertained throughout.

The second segment is The Wrong Man (directed by Alexandre Rockwell), and is honestly the worst segment of this film by a country mile. I'll go as far as to say it is one of the worst things ever put on a cinema screen. It consists of Roth going into the wrong room for delivery service and encounters an angry husband with a gun, and believes Ted to be the one who slept with his wife. Everyone acts way over-the-top in a non-comedic scenario (making the piece tonally confused), has multiple plot holes (Why does the angry husband go into the bathroom during a hostage situation, giving Ted the perfect opportunity to free his wife or call the police? Why doesn't Ted take advantage of this either, or after he leaves for that matter? Why does the wife mock and taunt her angry gun-wielding husband?) and has some forced ambiguity about the husband's homosexuality that is never explored. It is frankly unwatchable, and considering that Rockwell was the one who had the idea for the film in the first place, leads me to believe that he made a terrible film, knew it and dragged in the other directors to make other segments to hope no-one would notice it. Sadly, they did and it is no wonder that Rockwell hasn't worked much since the film came out.

The other two are the closet thing this film gets to decent. The Misbehavers (directed by Robert Rodriguez) is about Ted looking after some gangster's kids, with the instruction of not letting them misbehave. They do, and what follows maybe a one-joke skit, but it is quite funny, and the child actors are very good (Roth is thankfully restrained). It's unpleasantness towards the end (a dead hooker being found for example) may stop it from becoming great, but this is the best segment and it's punchline is priceless.

The final segment is The Man from Hollywood (directed by Quentin Tarantino), whereby Ted goes to a room of famous Hollywood actors and directors playing a drunken bet to chop off someone's finger for a $1,000 and Ted gets involved in the process. While funny and well acted, this is the most pointless segment in the film as it builds up to the bet and then just ends very aburptly, as if nothing happened. Yeah, no negative psychological side effects can come from chopping off from someone's finger. Makes sense to me.

Overall, this is just a failed experiment whose segments are widely uneven in terms of quality, the film is really smug at points and the thing connecting them together is really irritating and hard to care for. All of this combined makes this film something which while OK and not as bad as the critics at time would have you believe, isn't very good and it's no wonder why everyone involved has been actively trying to forget it ever happened. Sadly, it does and stands as a strong example as to why anthology film often don't work, as despite the talent behind camera, you often get overcooked messes like this. For curiosity's sake only.

Over the years, there have been many films that have been seen as classics of their genre, due to their critical and commercial success as well as fan support. However, this doesn't represent everybody, as there will inevitably be backlash against the film, and those people would feel that the film in question is overrated. Casein point, The Hunger Games, as while there are some good elements here and there, it seems surprising that a film so derivative, lazily written and overall quite weak would be praised as much as it has, and is one of the most overrated films over the past few years because of it.

The plot is that after volunteering instead of her sister, Katniss Everdeen takes part in The Hunger Games, a show that consists of young people fighting each other to the death for the sake of entertainment. When at the games, Katniss will do anything in her power in order to survive. If you feel that that synopsis sounds familiar, that's because it has blatantly been recycled from films like Battle Royale and The Running Man. If the film wasn't derivative enough already by this point, it also rips off bits from other films (like the authoritarian city from 1984 or the chase scenes from Apocalypto) in order to tell its story.

The writing is also undermined by other factors as well, like the multiple plot holes within the story, like why do the Capitol let two people live despite being intent on killing everyone else, or why Rue's district starts rioting, despite having their tributes killed for the past seven and half decades. It also lacks any sort of fundamental character development, leading to characters who are two-dimensional at best and at worst, quite boring and unsympathetic.

The latter of that definitely applies to Katniss, partly due to her poor writing, and the other part due to Jennifer Lawrence's poor performance, as while her character is meant to a strong, independent young woman with a dark past, Lawrence acts like a bored, whiny teenager who's upset that her Ipod ran out of charge. It makes her completely disengaged from the audience, as since she doesn't seem to care about her predicament, it makes the viewer question why they should care either. Thankfully, the rest of the acting is perfectly fine, but their character writing is still quite weak. The most notable example of this is when a character called Rue is killed off, and despite the fact that she has only five minutes of screen time or so, the audience is supposed to be shocked and saddened by her death.

It doesn't help that the film is constantly switching tone, and it becomes distracting after a while. At the beginning, the tone is serious and downbeat, and the setting of the film reflects this perfectly, with its muted colours and overall depressing mood. However, later scenes in the Capitol (where the Hunger Games takes place) are completely the opposite, with bright colours and people being dressed up like they had escaped from a Dr. Suess book. I understand that this is meant to be a juxtaposition on the rich and the poor, and how greedy the former truly are, but due to the film's serious tone, this part of the film feels overly cartoony and it becomes harder to take seriously as a result, something made even worse by the hugely unconvincing fire and attack dog special effects during the film's major set-pieces.

Sure this film has positive attributes, as it is finely acted for the most part, has strong production values and has pretty good action scenes here and there, despite the overused shaky cam technique, but there's not much to recommend the film otherwise. From its unoriginal story, to its badly written script, to its unsympathetic lead, to its bizarre tonal shifts throughout, the Hunger Games is an overall bad film that is only recommended to die- hard fans of the books, but even then I feel that some fans might struggle(due to how superior the books are meant to be). Sure, the sequels are better, but that doesn't wash away the bad taste that the first film left in the mouth.