Change Your Image
r_massey
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
A Field in England (2013)
Don't fall asleep!
I couldn't make it through the first half of the film.
Even after 30 minutes I was wondering whether it was worth carrying on towards the end.
With most movies, I'll watch until the end credits roll, even when the film is bad or average, just so I can form a full opinion.
With "A Field In England", however, the novelty and enjoyment wears off quite quickly due to the very slow pace and it's hard to see the kind of direction this film wanted to go in. Having turned off the movie halfway through and watched , I had to look up the plot summary to see what I had missed, which, in the end was just a very ambiguous finale.
I'm glad I didn't force myself to sit through the whole runtime but also disappointed that I couldn't seem to pluck anymore enjoyment from the film and didn't have reason to watch to the very end.
Sure, "A Field In England" may have a hidden subtext or meaning, but it's way too buried for anyone to see and extrapolate how it would come to fruition in a way that's purposeful and makes sense.
Jurassic World (2015)
Surprisingly not bad!
**Very mild spoilers**
Just when you think Hollywood are going to butcher another franchise with some unnecessary reboot or sequel, the execution of "Jurassic World" actually works well enough for it be watchable and possibly exceed expectations for those who had their doubts (I certainly had mine before entering the theatre). This can mainly be pinned down to the cast, starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins and Nick Robinson, whose characters are all (eventually) likable enough to want to follow their journey, especially Pratt, who was initially criticised for appearing too 'wooden' with his role when the first trailer made its way online. "Jurassic World" thankfully doesn't seem to take itself too seriously either, with a nice handful of jokes and light-hearted moments scattered throughout, mainly in the latter acts of the movie.
The film is dazzling, its vibrancy making it visually appealing to large audiences and also contributing to the fact that the film is not meant to be incredibly 'serious' (by alternatively employing a dark and washed out colour palette; a trope popular with 'rebooted' movies to imply a somber, grittier re-telling of a popular story). The CGI, which is definitely something of concern when involving the "Jurassic Park" franchise, can look incredible at times (the Mosasaurus being my favourite example) but is undeniably overdone, especially when the previous trilogy evinced that animatronics are a plausible alternative in the appropriate shots. The illusion of dinosaurs being real and tangible in this movie universe is sadly broken by the overwhelming use of CGI.
As a result, one of the major aspects missing from the film is the 'wow' factor that the previous movies instilled; dinosaur reveals just aren't exciting enough, especially when "Jurassic World" takes too long to even reveal the dinosaurs in the first place. Also disappointing is the fact that one of the first times we hear the grand and well-recognised "Jurassic Park" theme, composed by John Williams, is not for the dinosaur reveals but for a shot to establish the 'updated', modern theme park, glistening with standardisation and uniformity as it looks no different to any other immaculate holiday resort that we might expect, making the audience feel more 'amazed' by this 'modernised' park than the dinosaurs themselves.
However, this all ties in to the themes and comments made on society's present consumerist ways, the fact that we want 'bigger' and 'better', the whole reason for creating the hybrid dinosaurs in the first place; we have been so used to seeing the various dinosaurs in "Park"'s trilogy that the novelty has now worn off, hence the introduction of hybrid dinosaurs, a means to reel in a bigger audience and generate more excitement (and revenue).
The Indominus Rex, the result of hybrid experimentation, is an interesting concept to begin with but soon loses its novelty as the film progresses. This terrible lizard can be easily replaceable with a 'Spinosaurus' or any other large, intimidating carnivore, and subsequently produce no change in the latter half of the movie whatsoever.
"Jurassic World" makes it tempting to dose off in the first half of the film as it takes its time to introduce its attractions and dinosaurs, most of which were spoiled and revealed in the trailer anyway. After most of the plot devices and characters have been established, however, the movie finally grabs your attention and launches into the action, although more of an effort could have been made to create more suspense and tension as the stakes just never feel high enough, especially with the main characters, who hardly feel as if they're in danger.
Cutting right to the bone, "Jurassic World" is a solid film. While it isn't the most innovative out of the whole franchise and is sadly missing the 'wow' factor from its predecessors, it is entertaining enough and not too somber to appeal to and reel in wide audiences everywhere. Fans of the original "Jurassic Park" will also appreciate the many nods and easter eggs found throughout. I wouldn't particularly recommend "Jurassic World" but at the same time, I have no reason for deterring anyone to watch it at all.
Tôkyô magunichûdo 8.0 (2009)
Bittersweet and beautiful
"Tokyo Magnitude 8.0" tells the story of two young kids, a brother and sister, surviving a post-apocalyptic world after the events of a catastrophic earthquake as they make a long journey home to be re-united with their family. Though it isn't the most creative and compelling story, it really is more about the 'journey' that these characters take and the people they meet along the way that makes the anime worth the watch.
Even with just 11 episodes in 1 exclusive season, some episodes simply come across filler material as certain elements become repetitive very fast due to the show's slightly slow pace. However, this is all forgiven when we reach the show's bittersweet climax and, without delving into spoiler territory, discover the surprises that the anime has in store, making you appreciate the time taken to reach the ending and, as previously mentioned, the journey taken to get there.
Aided by the admirable story are the beautiful visuals, the art style being very reminiscent of Studio Ghibli productions. It is also worth mentioning the delicate score too, which is often serene and led by an elegant piano in the show's calmer moments, complimenting the animation and contributing to the show's overall bittersweet ambiance.
An English dub of the series does exist and though the entire voice cast is not superbly talented, the performances are definitely sufficient and convey the characters appropriately, especially Luci Christian whose performance of teenager Mirai Onozawa stands out amongst the rest and comes across impeccably from episode to episode.
Whether you're new to anime or not, "Tokyo Magnitude 8.0" is definitely worth the watch and with just 1 short season, it gets to the point with a definitive ending. It's worth noting that there's a "condensed" version of the series which runs under just less than an hour but I would strongly recommend just watching through all 11 episodes and following the characters' journey in these tragic events from the very beginning to the very end.
"Tokyo Magnitude" appropriately gets an "8.0" for its simple yet effective storytelling and memorable characters.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Hollywood does it again
Being new to the world of "Mad Max", I went in to the theatre with an open mind, only knowing to expect cars and explosions, which I briefly saw from snippets of trailers.
In the end, that's all I got, just explosions, cars, violence and no story whatsoever. Due to the fact that action sequences drag on for such an inexplicable amount of time, there's no room to breathe and incorporate morsels of a plot together. The 'plot' (if that's what you want to call it) and introduction to this world is so vague that it seems that the filmmakers just wanted to skim over the "unimportant" aspects of a film like a good plot and interesting characters and just get straight to the "high octane" action which QUICKLY loses its novelty and thrill. Good choice there, mates. This film is so bad that you can't even spoil it.
There's not much that I can praise about the film other than the nice (and insane) visuals; the use of vibrant blue and orange tones and the barren landscapes. It's difficult to even pick out anything good about the cast; Tom Hardy, who plays the titular character, has such a small role and just mumbles his way throughout the film, so unsure of himself. Speaking of mumbling, "Mad Max" is meant to be set in Australia yet there's an overwhelming earful of British and American accents, that are all painfully and conspicuously 'dubbed' in the ADR process of the movie (and even then, some of the dialogue is just unintelligible). Again, the focal point of the film seems to be the action sequences which go on for almost an hour straight, if I can remember correctly (though I don't want to remember anything about "Mad Max" at all).
Smaller aspects of the film are difficult to just gloss over and ignore, such as the fact that characters endure tough and dangerous road trips for days without food or water and still have the strength to fight, speak, stand, leap from car to car etc. This film is praised for its likely representation of a post-apocalyptic world yet there are just no tinges of realism to be found here.
It saddens me that audiences are responding to "Mad Max: Fury Road" so positively and enthusiastically, with a current 8.7 rating on IMDb and 98% score on Rotten Tomatoes (as of late May 2015). Are films so bad nowadays that the average moviegoer is just rendered completely susceptible and hypersensitive to mindless 'high-octane' action and plots that are barely held together by underdeveloped characters? For anyone serious about good-quality films, avoid "Mad Max" as best as you can, even if it means you have to drive far out into the Australian outback to isolate yourself from another one of Hollywood's 'finest'.
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
Forgettable
The cast from Marvel Studios' previous films have naturally returned to their respective roles but one of the major downfalls of "Age of Ultron" is that there is little to no development to these characters at all.
One of the best aspects of the film, however, is Jeremy Renner's portrayal as Hawkeye, whose character is greatly developed and, in comparison to the rest of our beloved Avengers, feels 'genuine'; his particular situation in "Age of Ultron" has evoked him to finally open up to the rest of his team and to us, the audience, to subsequently obtain a better understanding of the character.
While Hawkeye's character has been pushed a little more to the forefront, Black Widow seems to have taken a step back from the result of a very forced and poor romance 'blossoming' between her and Bruce Banner. Scarlett Johansson's character has always seemed quite strong in previous Marvel films and the insight to her character via flashback sequences in "Age of Ultron" would have only reinforced that impression if it weren't for Romanoff being so desperate to get into the Hulk's pants, despite their lack of chemistry.
Although it is nice to see the cast come together again since their ensemble debut, the characters simply engage in very generic and repetitive conversation and are constantly turning on each other, which soon becomes very tiring. We already witnessed enough of that in the first Avengers movie. If you are aware of Marvel's current movie plans and their 'Phases', it is easy to piece together that this forced conflict within the group is all necessary buildup for the events of "Captain America: Civil War" and though this conflict will be accentuated in the 2016 movie, the teasing towards this event was just not subtle.
On a related note, Marvel is dabbling excessively in what I dislike the most about their attempt at creating a very 'cohesive' cinematic universe; their need to set up events that play out in the future. In itself, "Age of Ultron" is quite a solid movie with a definitive beginning, middle and ending. However, most of the bits in the 'middle' can be cut out, i.e. the need to introduce characters and locations (and "Age of Ultron" features MANY of these) that will have greater significance in future films. With this in mind, the film feels overstuffed with characters, hence why characters, overall, feel so underused and underdeveloped.
Introduced into the movie's new roster of heroes are Wanda Maximoff, her twin brother Pietro Maximoff and the Vision, their presence definitely welcomed. The transition from antagonists to heroes feels natural on behalf of the Twins. While Olsen's and Johnson's performances as the Twins are sufficient, it is worth noting that their Eastern-European accents are notably off at times. Paul Bettany as the Vision is definitely one of the film's highlights but unfortunately just feels like another character that Marvel have attempted to shoehorn into their movie universe, making his presence and role feel underused.
Ultron, who is responsible for these three new heroes, is one of the biggest problems of this film. Don't let the trailers fool you that he is menacing because he simply isn't.
Again, because of the abundant amount of characters, it is so difficult to focus on a single character and that unfortunately includes the villain; we never get a full insight into what Ultron is truly capable of. The villain is also made to be too human in some aspects with his dialect and (facial) expressions and is composed as acting much too casual considering his 'motives'; Ultron is simply is just all talk and no action.
"Man of Steel" quickly made viewers tired of seeing building after building being demolished and flying pieces of rubble and debris everywhere in its action sequences and so, to see this happen so often in the Avengers sequel is to experience something so tedious, exhausting, cliché and repetitive. I had no reaction at all to the action sequences. Characters may don slightly upgraded weapons and suits and may be pulling off some sweet combo moves together but the choreography just isn't striking enough as it was with "The Winter Soldier".
Due to the bland action sequences, it never feels like the heroes are in any danger at all. There's no tension to be anticipated at all and the stakes throughout "Age of Ultron" just never feel high enough. Sure, some villain galvanises the team of heroes to navigate through several different locations and stop him from destroying the planet before it's too late but, I don't know, I may or may not be experiencing some déjà vu
Marvel don't seem to know how to amp up the stakes and tension; all they really seem to know is how to amp up the number of characters they can squeeze into a two hour movie. As mentioned above, the action sequences are all so generic (and all contain so much destruction) that it's difficult to tell when we've reached some kind of pinnacle or climax where we can expect the film to really blow out, hence why the third act of "Age of Ultron" is just so underwhelming.
"The Avengers: Age of Ultron" is no improvement on Marvel Studios' former works and, sadly, just not even on the same standards. The film is simply overstuffed with mediocre gags, characters, repetitive dialogue and dull action. As a result, there's hardly a reaction to have towards "Age of Ultron" other than the feeling of being underwhelmed by how much a potentially good story and exciting villain have been sacrificed at the expense of Marvel pleasing the average moviegoer with comedy and 'big' action. Unless you're taking your kids with you, save your money on cinema tickets and rent the film later this year instead. There's nothing to miss here. "Age of Ultron" is one of Marvel's most forgettable movies to date.
Hellboy (2004)
Pointless
At best, "Hellboy" is somewhat, but not very, enjoyable; the creature designs, practical effects, make-up and visuals (minus the terrible CGI) are all impressive. The action sequences, however, are poorly orchestrated, and never implement a real sense of suspense or incite excitement, especially when they rely heavily on Perlman's delivery of one liners to a monster he fights over and over again, just in different settings.
Looking for a plot? Well, how about a monster fight instead? Would you like that?! The story we're meant to follow is extremely vague, so much so that the film just feels like a mish-mash of scenes, especially with the flawed pacing. Despite the painfully obvious exposition at times in the dialogue, there is actually little to no explanation behind the events of the movie, little motives behind characters and antagonists. Everything seems so underdeveloped that it is difficult to see what this film is getting at. It's like a 9 yr old trying to give advice, you know? Numerous moments require a great deal of suspension of disbelief and these moments are just too hard to overlook.
The tone of the film is quite varied too; just when the film quietens down and is serious, we think we may finally get to learn something about the characters and come to appreciate them but we are then thrown back into the extremely ambiguous plot or into another fight scene and too many of these moments come across as corny, largely due to the fact that we have no idea what is going on and what exactly to think of the characters as, as I have mentioned above, the lack of development makes it difficult to care for what is occurring on screen.
Perhaps back in 2004, when this film was first released, it was appreciated and I could just about see why but 11 years later and it really does not seem to hold up. I find the current rating on IMDb to be very misleading. The ratings for its sequel, which I have yet to view, are significantly higher but I hope the scores are more representative. I really wish I could get my 2 hours back watching this film.
"Hellboy" is undeniably as pointless as Hellboy's horns. Don't waste your time with this film.
Chronicle (2012)
Insane
There isn't much I have to say about "Chronicle" other than the fact that I found it fresh, intriguing, tragic and captivating.
The relationship between the three main protagonists, though odd at first, feels genuine and is a testament to the performances by the actors; their interactions are typical of teenagers, making them all the more relatable. Following their journey through the 'found footage' aids in this achievement, getting a nice insight into the personal lives of these characters. This intimacy is also what sets this film apart from simply falling into the 'superhero' movie genre and even amidst the science-fiction/fantasy aspects to the movie, the whole experience can be treated as quite realistic if such events were to happen. Going off this basis, the climax is pretty insane, but in a great way; just when you think the found footage perspective is getting tiring, it once again brings this third act to a personal level and the presentation of action is unlike anything I've ever seen. There is no musical score in the background to force us to feel like we're experiencing something truly 'epic' in the third act, as one commonly finds in a sci-fi/superhero film, as it is the cast performances and suspense created by some of the alarming visuals that ultimately create this effect.
I can understand why there may be some mixed feelings towards the film, especially with the choice of found footage to drive the narrative, but I feel that "Chronicle" tells the compelling story that it wants to tell through both tragedy and marvel. Bearing in mind that this is a low budget film, its ramifications noticeable in the CGI (though this is something you soon get used to and actually come to praise), I would definitely recommend "Chronicle" for anyone interested in a fresh take on the science-fiction and superhero genre.
Big Hero 6 (2014)
Weak plot but plenty of action, humour and emotional moments
Revolving around a boy who suddenly befriends and takes a great liking to a superficial being amongst a generic group of friends, the plot of Big Hero 6 is considerably weak and cliché, subsequently leaving its plot twists predictable, therefore having very little impact on the viewer.
That being said, it is the tone and 'heart' of "Big Hero 6" that makes it such a thrill to experience. Even in the thick of the thin plot, its only major downfall, the film feels wonderfully fresh, especially with its fictional location of San Fransokyo, a bustling city that is comprised of awe-inspiring visuals, all thanks to the advances in animation, aiding to bring even the most generic characters just a little bit closer to real life. Whilst it can be easy to miss a lot of it when being immersed in the film, the attention to detail in the animation is wonderful and makes this film pop in a very vibrant and lively way that we have not seen in a Disney film before.
The humour, for the most part, is light-hearted and though not extremely witty, it is guaranteed to make you laugh at the innocent (and even not so innocent) jokes scattered throughout. This innocence is definitely present in the film's more emotional moments, which it handles with great delicacy and is one of the key factors in making "Big Hero 6" feel so human, making us able to relate to the characters even more and enjoy their story in the film's otherwise predictable plot line.
I have hammered this point excessively but while the plot is much too simple, the movie's execution is pinpoint and I believe that "Big Hero 6" succeeds in being the film it wants to be; containing the action usually found from a superhero movie genre but coupled with Disney's more magical and yet down-to-earth 'human' moments. The fresh take on the superhero genre and the beat followed in the tender 'heart' of the film will create a long lasting impression and inevitable love for the characters at the end of the cinematic journey, leaving you yearning for more.
"Big Hero 6" is so close to being on par with Pixar's "The Incredibles" but that obviously does not mean that you shouldn't watch this film, I would highly recommend it.
Godzilla (2014)
Bland
This new adaptation of "Godzilla" seemed to be the perfect opportunity for rekindling an interest in the monster and presenting him a new light. While the film does successfully showcase that Godzilla can be treated as a protagonist, it seems very absurd that a population would come to that conclusion after the amount of destruction caused by the monsters.
I was aware of Godzilla's little screen time before viewing the film but was disappointed with the MUTOs having been given the spotlight, leaving Godzilla as an inevitable plot device for getting rid of the 'evil' monsters, making the majority of the militaristic aspects of the film pretty pointless, even when we are explicitly told that Godzilla will have to defeat the MUTOs somewhere in the second act and the military act regardless; we have no interest in their actions following this point.
The action and tension quickly wears off and becomes dull following the first act and all sense of mystery and suspense is stripped away at the clear sights of the MUTOs terrorising cities via TV broadcasts. The visuals and CGI are impressive but as previously mentioned, the MUTOs appear to be given more screen time which means we are unable to fully appreciate the level of detail put into Godzilla, whose design is much more meticulous than that of the Cloverfield-esque monsters.
What would have been a great, chilling scene in the third act, when soldiers free fall into the barren and devastated city at night, is diminished by the fact that, again, there is no more mystery regarding the monsters and no tension to be anticipated. The film very easily comes across as bland as it steers away from teasing big reveals and instead opts for the cliché and more explicit shots of the monsters battling it out and the city in ruin but no real evidence of a chaotic atmosphere as most civilians are swept aside, letting the soldiers take the forefront of the narrative.
Cast performances are not at their potential best due to the averagely-written script. There seems to be little drive within the characters, appearing very simple, following explicit orders. Emotional moments are never fully explored as most of this exchange is quickly done and dusted, either in person or over the phone.
"Godzilla" is a tolerable watch (not that I'd recommend it) but you may find yourself disappointed and underwhelmed after the 2 hour viewing. Don't expect a lot other than an average 'monster' movie that fails to present an epic scale, with simple characters and a very stale plot.
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Space for improvement
A fresh installment into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, "Guardians of The Galaxy" is a fun adventure featuring an interesting leading ensemble of characters. The film's visual effects really help to bring the various extra-terrestrial settings to life. The pop compilation soundtrack is an additional fun factor to the film's light-hearted humour.
However, these very features ultimately seem to make up for and mask "Guardians"' lacking plot in which a forgettable villain seeks to destroy the universe while the protagonists take measures to stop them, something not too dissimilar to other Marvel movie story lines ("Thor: The Dark World" in particular). This cliché plot needs to be given a rest, especially when the film doesn't seem to really accentuate that particular threat and its implications.
Other than colourful alien worlds, there is nothing else that this film seems to offer or present other than its entertaining cast and (sometimes forced) humour. I really would have liked for a better insight into Peter Quill and his experiences, having been taken away so suddenly from Earth, and a better look at the various worlds we are presented with in the film. Star Wars is a great example of showcasing distinct planets that we become accustomed to and can easily recognise; "Guardians" needs to take a page or two from that book.
I have a feeling that the direction in which this film could have been taken in was shunted due to the fact that Marvel wanted to introduce key plot points that would feature and play heavily in the overall arc of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its Phases, especially with the expanded introduction of Thanos, whom we can speculate will be the ultimate villain in an "Avengers" movie. Though I understand that this film had the appropriate setting and theme in which to officially introduce these plot points, it feels like it drags it down from feeling like its own, separate entity and not just something that has to very specifically tie into Marvel's current plans for their movies.
"Guardians of The Galaxy" is an entertaining film at best with the crux of its popularity seemingly accumulated from the wild response to the vivid and discrete ensemble of characters and the film's lively and amusing tone. The cliché plot and forgettable villain disappointingly drags "Guardians" down. Don't be fooled by the critics' consensus; this film is good but its notable errors prove that there is definitely room for improvement. Origin stories often tend to fall into this trap but leeway is obviously permitted as the filmmakers get to find their footing and subsequently and hopefully deliver a more developed story and villain for the sequel.
Is "Guardians" worth the watch? Yes, but don't expect anything more than just a fun comic-book movie.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)
A disappointing conclusion
While I was very reluctant to hear the news that The Hobbit was being stretched into three films, I was fine with the direction of the first two and fairly confident that the final instalment would be a satisfactory ending to the trilogy. I was proved wrong.
Picking up from exactly where The Desolation of Smaug left off, Smaug is killed off in the first 15 minutes of the film which is disappointing considering how much the character/dragon was built up in the third act of the predecessor. With very little plot to go off (having to use such a small remain of the book), pretty much everything seems to go on for too long, especially the battle.
There seems to be no real justification for the extra plot lines explored in the first two films. What exactly was the point of Gandalf going to Dol Guldur other than to acknowledge that Sauron exists and to just draw that link back to the LOTR trilogy? What exactly happened to Elrond, Radagast, Galadriel and Saruman afterwards? They added nothing interesting to the story at all over these three films, their story arc has been a waste of time and covered what we already know (that Sauron is out there).
I was okay with Legolas' and Tauriel's appearance in the Desolation of Smaug (not originally appearing in the book) but even now, they too are characters that serve no purpose at all to the story and have just been shoehorned in for the purpose of adding unnecessary romance to the trilogy and to rake in some more cash by using Legolas to lure in big fans of the LOTR trilogy.
The only 'heart' that is actually present from this film is the interaction between Bilbo and the Dwarfs, Thorin in particular. Why wasn't this explored even more? I would have loved to have seen the dwarfs have a bigger role but a lot of them go unspoken and have very little to do.
Characters have very little room for development in this film, most of the focus is on the action and almost every bit of drama is forced, added for the sake of drama e.g., Bard saving his family from the troll, Kili trying to save Tauriel, Tauriel trying to save Kili, taking an entire Age to kill an Orc, all this just comes across as too cheesy, especially Thorin 'drowning' in gold and falling to his death before overcoming his 'dragon sickness', something that could have been handled with a lot more care and respect.
While there is a lot of action, it's never enticing and you can tell that the writers just thought of different ways of characters to pull off some crazy stunts that would look 'cool' on screen but ultimately have no effect whatsoever *cough* Legolas disobeying the laws of physics *cough* riding the bird thing. The stunts executed in the LOTR trilogy worked very well, especially as a lot of them were practical but the CGI and unbelievable situations these characters find themselves in (yes, it's a fantasy film but LOTR still had that little hint of realism) are just ridiculous.
The CGI seems very unfinished, especially Billy Connolly, who plays Thorin's cousin Dáin, who jitters through the world of Middle-Earth, appearing like a very video-gamey character and possibly something out of a Dreamworks movie.
Orcs aren't as terrifying as they were in the LOTR trilogy due to being completely CGI too. Speaking of Orcs, Azog too has had very little purpose in the trilogy. I was okay with him living in the film (when he is actually dead in the book) for him to have an ultimate showdown with Thorin, who I imagine would have been enraged at Azog for having killed his grandfather, but nope, they don't even talk about that, they fight for the sake of having some action in the film, resulting in a very anti-climatic duel between the two.
The only really light and interesting moments to ever occur on screen are those led by Martin Freeman with his performance as Bilbo, the only consistently good thing to come from these films (and the rest of the cast too but mainly Freeman as his character comes through as the most down-to-earth and not so serious). Had the filmmakers drawn their focus more towards 'the hobbit' and not characters who do not even need any screen time at all (Legolas, Tauriel, Saruman etc.) then this series would have turned out a lot better. Bilbo has slowly been swept aside with each sequel and mainly becomes a spectator to most of the events occurring around him. Why have a film about the titular character when you can have ridiculously long and ridiculous battle sequences instead?
"The Hobbit: The Battle of The Five Armies" is a very unsatisfying conclusion to Peter Jackson's stretched out and unjustified trilogy, leaving not so subtle nods to its 'follow-up' trilogy, presenting us with 'additional' information to the book that doesn't particularly tell us anything new and leaving some subplots unresolved. The action gets tiresome very quickly and the CGI is much too distracting. Whether you're a big fan of these movies on Middle Earth or not, this film may be nothing more to you than just your standard popcorn flick.
The Walking Dead (2010)
Deteriorating
This show doesn't seem to know what to do with itself apart from its shock factor with a character death every now and again.
Season One was incredible and was such a promising start to the series, having the perfect balance of action and drama. Season Two was a little bumpy but offered a great, tense second half.
The third season was where this show began to lose its footing and I'm assuming that it was at this point where the show saw a massive boost in popularity and wanted to make up for the second season's dull moments and give us more episodes per season and making more episodes action-oriented, taking away from some essential drama, making it the worst season ever.
Seasons Four and Five had very promising starts but after watching "Coda", the mid-season finale for S5, I really don't know where this show wants to go anymore; what it has to offer that it hasn't already done. There are no satisfying story arcs and little room for character development as main characters have all toughened up now and are able do what's necessary to survive in this post-apocalyptic world until they get bombarded by an overwhelming number of zombies or until they get faced by a human threat, leaving character deaths inevitable.
Too many episodes are now fillers, with little exchange between characters and nothing that retains an exciting and enjoyable pace for the show. Honestly, I think that sixteen episodes per season is just too much for the writers to handle and they don't really know how to thread these together into something worthwhile.
Whilst I've expressed my concern regarding the direction of this show and whether it can really offer anything new, I just want to point out that there is a great cast here and while their comic-book counterparts are often significantly different, it has been nice to see how these actors/actresses and characters have grown over these past few years, especially since the very first season.
I just wish that the show had better use for its cast, the characters' relationships with each other and more room for growth. As mentioned previously, we've just hit a point where these characters have pretty much reached their full potential, all they can do now is survive until the writers decide to kill them off and I think the show has made the mistake of time-jumping too much and never showing the interesting things that potentially happen in between seasons.
The zombies/walkers/rotters/thingamajigs are scary indeed and the amount of detail gone into the make-up for the walkers is fascinating, especially when we're presented with different types of zombies, affected by their surroundings in some way or another and transforming them in pretty grotesque ways. The practical effects are amazing and really show you how brutal this world is for these characters. I've enjoyed how creative this show can be too, with the way that zombie traps are made and the specific ways that characters have learnt to protect and defend themselves; though we may quickly get the idea, they need to put a little more focus on that or else it seems like these ideas can get easily overlooked.
"The Walking Dead" was definitely my favourite show during the airing of its first two seasons (because who'd ever seen a TV show about zombies before?) but its quality has been steadily declining now that it is unable to cover new ground and offer promising story arcs. There is the occasional great episode and that is where it adopts the formula that made season one so good but these great episodes are usually followed by less interesting, disappointing ones. I just wish this show was consistently good. I'd rather the spin-off/companion series be scrapped and more time and effort spent on improving the current series. Who knows, maybe the companion series can learn from the mistakes that this show has been making and give us something a lot better?
"The Walking Dead" is slowly proving that it has room for improvement and I just hope that the team behind the show recognise this and put this into action.
Batman: Assault on Arkham (2014)
Go... villains?!
It's weird that you'll ever find yourself rooting for the bad guys to win and "Assault on Arkham" makes you do this exactly.
The film introduces you to an ensemble of villains, given an objective that depends on their lives. You find yourself quite absorbed in the plot and the characters as they interact with each other (not always harmoniously), almost wanting to see them succeed when going to the lengths that they do.
If you're turning this film on expecting it to be a "Batman" film then you may be disappointed to know that he only appears for a few minutes at a time and that the central focus actually lies on the Suicide Squad, but, knowing this in advance allows you to enjoy and appreciate the film a lot more. Thankfully, I was informed of this beforehand and equally loved seeing either Batman or his adversaries on-screen, therefore making it all the more exciting to see them all appear at once at the same time.
The animation and art style is great and superb voice acting by Kevin Conroy (Batman), Troy Baker (The Joker), Neal McDonough (Deadshot) and pretty much everyone else; they really bring the characters to life, especially Conroy who has been voicing the caped crusader for decades and practically knows the character inside out.
My only issue with "Batman: Assault on Arkham" is that it is too short, especially when the film gets going in the final act and has a lot to potentially offer but doesn't really have the time or room to explore. This is a good animated film and definitely worth the watch if you're a Batman fan, especially if you're familiar with the "Batman: Arkham" video game series.
Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)
Cat!
"Breakfast at Tiffany's" sees Holly Golightly, a fascinating character played by Audrey Hepburn, earning a living by 'dating' rich men while she bumps into her new neighbour, "Fred" (played by George Peppard), who also becomes slowly fascinated by her. Despite Holly's plans, scraping up money in her own way, she and "Fred" eventually come together and she realises that there's more to her life than just receiving some kind of income to survive and to help out her brother in the army.
I appreciate the tale of self-discovery, finding out who you are through the means of romance but "Breakfast at Tiffany's" takes much too long to reach some sort of conclusion and when it does, there's nothing else to really emphasise that it's a (long-term) happy ending. The pacing is much too slow, lingering on scenes that could be cut a lot shorter, and the humour (with Mr Yunioshi) is pretty terrible. Having checked out ratings and reviews for the film beforehand, I was disappointed and felt like I hadn't learnt much from the 1 hr 54 mins spent watching the film.
"Breakfast at Tiffany's" is not exactly a bad film but one that drags on too long with no satisfying ending, resulting in an easy 'miss' for me.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Spider-Man is Spider-Man, at last!
Spidey has been my favourite superhero for as long as I can remember and though I never grew up reading the comics, I absorbed the 90s "The Animated Series" as a kid, which included a great roster of characters, villains and stories from the comics themselves.
"You wanna know what I love about being Spider-Man? Everything." Yeah, you said it Andrew Garfield because you are THE Spider-Man. Sony have given Spidey the big treatment; Spider-Man is as Spider-Man as Spider-Man can usually get, he's witty, quippy, strong, agile, his web-swinging looks better than ever and the filmmakers made the right choice in listening to the fans and changing the suit, giving us a Spider-Man that is a lot more comic-book accurate (or in my case, something that's a lot more in line with the Spider-Man I know from the 90s cartoon).
The visuals look great, especially with Electro present on screen and everything seems a lot more vibrant and lively which is refreshing after the filmmakers had made the wrong choice in making the first installment too dark and realistic for the character of Spider-Man and his world.
The cast is incredible and having not seen him in a movie before, Dane DeHaan really stands out and was a pleasant surprise for me.
However, the film suffers A LOT from poor writing and a lack of narrative direction. There is a jumble of sub-plots that ultimately tie in to "Oscorp" but there is no linearity, no real sense of progression in the story, leaving you a little bored and uninterested in all the little threads that are meant to somehow tie together. While I like the attempt at being more lighthearted, most of the comedy drags on a little and is only really funny the first time around.
Jamie Foxx was a waste as Electro and pushed it a little too far in playing a goofy Max Dillon that we are meant to sympathise with. Yes, it's easy to understand Electro's motivations but the film does that in too much of a silly manner and this 'main villain' is locked away for a good chunk of the film before having some kind of purpose towards the ending.
**SPOILERY PART** As I said, while DeHaan's performance was great, it doesn't help that his character, Harry Osborn, was rushed and became the Goblin way too soon, only really being introduced for the purpose of killing off Gwen at the end of the film and trying to stay somewhat accurate to the comics.
While her ending was probably best left for the sequel, leaving room for a bigger build-up to the event, it still had a huge emotional impact due to Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's wonderful chemistry on-screen, again, throughout the film. Andrew Garfield's reaction to her death was heartbreaking and this film was the first film to ever leave me in quite an emotional wreck; a testament to how great the casting has been for the rebooted franchise, especially Garfield's presence in these movies.
"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" had the potential to be probably the greatest Spider-Man movie out there, they hit so many great notes such as Spider-Man's characterisation, bringing Hans Zimmer on board to score the film (which he did excellently for both action scenes and very emotional moments in the film), an excellent cast and the potential to move anywhere they wanted in terms of the story after having covered Spider-Man's origin in the predecessor.
However, all is let down by poor writing, leaving bad pacing, a jumbled story and frankly, a film that tries to achieve too much in too little time, suffering from having to kinda resolve the "Untold Story" about Peter's parents from the first film and then introducing two other villains (Rhino doesn't really count and I'm not bothered by his appearance at the end of the film, it worked well).
It also doesn't help that, once again, Sony are looking to the success of other films, trying to copy the Marvel Cinematic Universe and create an expanded Spider-Man movie universe before firmly establishing other characters/villains that could lead into interesting spin-offs that the general audience will want to see. Sony have wasted their attempt at proving that the Spider-Man reboot was initially a great idea with the mistakes they made in TASM2, some mistakes that also cropped up in Spider-Man 3 (surely they would have learned by now). This film was the make or break for this franchise and has led people to wonder whether Spider-Man is in the right hands. Does that mean he should go back to Marvel, so that he can appear alongside the Avengers? No, not really, it just means that Sony need to step up their game and focus on making their own, decent Spider-Man film and not looking at how successful other franchises are doing.
"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" has some great elements which really shine, hence my generous score for the film, but a poor story that holds the film back from being anything more than just your average Spider-Man film.
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Almost there...
It's obvious that the filmmakers looked to the successes that were the first two Nolan Batman films and tried to imitate the darker, more grounded tone that they embraced. However, Sony made the wrong move in doing so and failing to understand that Spider-Man is not a dark character.
One of my problems with this film is that it doesn't really feel like a Spider-Man film; it feels like Peter just takes up the mantle of Spider-Man out of nowhere and doesn't really fulfil what it means to be a hero. What troubles me even more is that Spider-Man is conceived out of revenge; the writers made Peter Parker go to the effort of creating the full Spider-Man suit and web-shooters for the purpose of Peter getting his vengeance on his Uncle Ben's killer, no.
The action scenes get quite dull (especially due to Horner's unforgettable score throughout the film), the crane scene at the end was a little cheesy for my liking, the Lizard could have had a lot more potential (especially if they had introduced Connors' family) and the film just fails to capture the true essence of Spider-Man.
Why the high-ish rating then? The cast is great and disregarding this as a "Spider-Man" movie, characters are believable and each actor/actress really brings their role to life. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone share wonderful chemistry together and the Peter/Gwen romance is the highlight of this film, trumping the dull relationship between Peter and Mary Jane in Raimi's trilogy. One of my favourite moments from the film was the bridge scene in which Spider-Man saves a young boy trapped in a burning car, hanging off the side of the bridge. Andrew Garfield's charisma comes through a lot here and it's that interaction between him and the young boy that makes his iteration of Peter Parker likable, more so than Tobey Maguire in Raimi's trilogy who often came across as a little too dull and lifeless.
I really want to like "The Amazing Spider-Man" but the material and storytelling is average, suffering from having to go through the origin again and having little justification for doing so, especially with the untold story about Peter's parents which is never fully resolved and just gets swept under the rug as the film progresses. The film tries too hard to copy the grittier tone led by The Dark Knight and is consciously trying to separate itself from the Raimi films rather than being its own thing, resulting in a poor execution for a Spider-Man film. That being said, I have watched this film multiple times because of the excellent cast making it worth sticking around for the 2 hr runtime. Andrew Garfield makes for a promising Peter Parker and Spider-Man (despite the poor material he's had to work with) and Emma Stone shines as the strong female lead and love interest Gwen Stacy. If it wasn't for the cast, then this film would most likely get 6/10.
How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014)
Fun but lacking
Five years have passed since the events of the first movie and we're already thrown into how much Berk has changed since then and how much more of a community it feels with the presence of dragons. Things such as Dragon Racing at Berk are fun to watch and it's nice to see all the different ways in which dragons have come to use and how everyone has become adapted to being around them. Hiccup's new inventions were very cool; kudos to the filmmakers for coming up with those very nifty ideas.
One of the things that struck me at first was how beautiful the film looked; the visuals and animation were vastly improved on the first and characters, dragons and scenery looked and felt more alive than ever. There's a lot of attention to detail such as small character quirks and Toothless playing about in the background with other dragons. That being said though, having dragons pop in and out of frame in the background is overdone by just a touch and distracts from important dialogue and events occurring in the foreground.
The introduction of Hiccup's mother in the movie feels a little too rushed; I thought that maybe she would have been brought in in the third film. Furthermore, the little mention of Hiccup's mother earlier on in the film takes away from the surprise of the reveal. However, it's nice to see the two finally get to bond, Hiccup discovering that he takes a lot from his mother, and the reunion with the whole family, when Stoick stumbles across his wife, is very heartwarming indeed. "You're as beautiful as the day I lost you." - this may or may not have brought a tear to my eye...
The moment when the film begins to lose its balance, and almost ejects you from the immersion is when Drago Bludvist, the antagonist, is given very little build-up, despite the mystery surrounding the character at the beginning of the story, and is suddenly seen launching an attack on the dragon home inhabited by Valka, Hiccup's mother. The remainder of the film at this point feels rushed, as if the filmmakers realised they'd forgotten about the threat they'd introduced at the start of the film. I wasn't entirely convinced that Drago was a menacing villain, despite his plans and actions in the film, and the filmmakers hit a bit of a sour note on making the antagonist black, something a little cliché in animated films and just a little bit racist too.
The battle at this point in the movie feels a little too reminiscent of the final battle in the first installment, making it hard not to draw comparisons between the two. Stoick's death was emotional but I expected a greater reaction from everyone else, especially Hiccup and Valka as they'd just lost the chance of being reunited as a family. Having Stoick killed off and Valka there to 'take his place' as a parent for Hiccup just seemed a little too convenient.
I felt a little disappointed with the climax and ending; though it regarded more the connection between Toothless and Hiccup, the final battle at Berk was a little too short for my liking. Other than Hiccup becoming chieftain and taking his father's mantle, the ending just makes it feel like not much had happened, that there wasn't much of a lesson to learn and that there was little difference between the beginning and end events of the film.
Though I don't mind the emphasis put on the relationship between Hiccup, his mother and his father, I feel that other characters weren't developed enough and that some of them were merely there for comic relief. The changes made to Astrid felt a little off; yes, you can tell that it's meant to be the same Astrid from the first film and yes, five years have passed but the character's appearance and characterisation is softened and a little watered down from the strong character that she was in the predecessor. It felt like she was only there to be the established 'love interest' who we don't really get to learn much more about. Eret, the dragon trapper and a new character to the series, was one of the only other characters who had sufficient development and subsequently had believable motivations.
How To Train Your Dragon 2 is a good film and is worth the watch, carrying a lot of heart and is guaranteed to make you smile, laugh and maybe even break into tears but the sequel loses its footing with a story that rushes itself in its second half and fails to develop characters as it did with its predecessor.
The Wolverine (2013)
Wolverine deserves better.
"The Wolverine" is the first time we get to see Wolverine in action, with plenty of blood, killing, swearing (well, the "F bomb" was dropped 3 times, not that often) and all that other good stuff. As always, Hugh Jackman is superb in the role but there are a few aspects of the film that bring the whole experience down.
Performances by the rest of the cast can be notably bad and lifeless at times and it doesn't help that characters are written to be quite stupid and one-dimensional. I have a feeling that some actors were only cast because they were experienced in fighting and choreography for the plentiful action scenes scattered in the film. The romance between Logan and Mariko was unnecessary and felt too forced. The plot becomes a little difficult to follow as we get further into the film and is illogically explained towards the end.
There are plenty of moments that make you scratch your head and make you question what the filmmakers were actually thinking; Wolverine disobeying the laws of physics (on the train), successfully striking the adamantium robot with one clean sweep and then deciding to make it fall over instead of finishing it off, Wolverine not doing anything at all about the multiple arrows being shot into his back and not even looking as if he's running fast enough to escape them and to get to Mariko, the Viper not using her powers immediately when confronted by Yukio, the list goes on.
"The Wolverine" opened with a very good 45 minutes but the remainder of the film gets silly along with both the plot and the characters. Hugh Jackman and his badass Wolverine moments may make this worth the watch but pretty much everything else doesn't.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Break out the L word
For fans of all things geeky around the world, this film is for YOU! Comedy, action, romance, video games, music; "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" has everything you could ask for. It very quickly became my favourite film after watching it and I could watch it over and over again without ever getting bored of it; the same way that you could watch the same episode of Friends for the 'nth' time and find it as hilarious as the first.
Though the character feels quite different to his graphic novel counterpart, Michael Cera does an excellent job as the awkward Scott, Kieran Culkin is perfect as Wallace and Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a much more tragic version of Ramona Flowers but this change still works well.
Scott Pilgrim is a must-see and it deserves more recognition. Go watch it, you'll love it.
Man of Steel (2013)
Where is Superman?
Man of Steel is more of an action film, not a superhero film, and departs a lot from the Superman character. Yes, Krypton is there, the Kents are there and the Daily Planet is there but the film does nothing to develop Superman or Clark as a character; only really being fleshed out when we see Clark growing and using his powers for the first time.
The first half of Man of Steel, though too dark in tone for my liking and especially for Superman, is quite good, showing the building of character relationships and some emotional moments between them. Any sign of 'heart', however, is just thrown out of the window and through several buildings in Metropolis at the very moment that Zod begins his 'alien invasion', leaving the viewer to sit through mindless action that just goes on and on, with little to no progression, making the story go nowhere.
My biggest issue with Snyder's film is that it just does not feel like a Superman film. Where is that Superman magic that the first Donner film entailed? I appreciate the "updated" origin story and that we're essentially seeing Superman starting out but we never get to see him save someone in the suit. Henry Cavill was a great choice for Superman but he was just not given enough to do in the film, making his character, and a lot of the characters in the film, very empty, never letting the audience care for any of them (apart from perhaps Mama and Papa Kent).
Man of Steel is all style and no substance.
Thor: The Dark World (2013)
We're up all night to get Loki
The first half of the film was very boring and did NOTHING to engage the audience. The film only really picked up just before Loki was broken out of his cell by Thor. Characters (apart from Loki) were bland and extremely boring, Malekith was terrible, the Aether just seemed like another Tesseract, his army were a little too similar to the Chitari for my liking and may as well have just been Storm Troopers and the whole "turning the entire universe into darkness" plot line seemed too cliché.
Special effects were special. What was with the weird colour scheme used and the blurry backgrounds? It looked like something out of 300. Asgard still looked nice.
I enjoyed seeing Loki and Thor team-up but Thor's action sequences on his own weren't that good. The final battle was a little too reminiscent of the IM3 final battle for my liking; Thor jumping into different worlds/Tony jumping into different Iron Man suits.
So, this film is only really good enough because of Loki. If it wasn't for the character and his excellent portrayal by Tom Hiddleston, this film would most likely get a 3/10. If you want to know what happens in the film because you want to catch up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, just read the plot online and maybe watch a montage of the best Loki moments in the film.
Rick and Morty (2013)
Wow
I love Back To The Future and when I saw the first few minutes of the pilot episode of the show, I knew that this would be definitely be worth sticking around for.
Rick and Morty takes you on some great adventures and there is always a unique story tell in each episode. Characters are crazy, believable and interesting and are always given enough development throughout the first season, especially Jerry and Beth, Morty's parents.
On a related note, finding out that this was an "adult" show had me worried that it would be too silly and immature (on par with Family Guy?) but I was surprised by how "adult" some of the issues covered in the show really were, reflecting very real problems faced in life.
Rick and Morty is a show that cannot be missed and I'm sure season 2 will be just as good, or even better, than season 1 and I can't wait until it airs.