Reviews

Quickie Review:

Steve Jobs (Michael Fassbender), the founder and CEO of Apple is known around the world for his passion and drive to further technology. His success in the industry was not a smooth journey, and came with a lot of personal and professional sacrifices. The man behind some of the biggest technology shifts is revealed with each of the three critical product unveils. Steve Jobs, is no ordinary biographical film. This is not the story of his life, but about the man and why he sees the world and people the way he does. The performances are flawless and nuanced, with the incredible script from Aaron Sorkin flowing the narrative without a moment wasted. Sure to get some award considerations, this is one that should not be missed.

Full Review:

Before the movie even was in production there were multiple highly talented actors involved in the project at one point or another. The likes of Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Jessica Chastain, Natalie Portman, just to name a few. It is hard not to wonder how great is the script that all these actors and actresses want to be cast. After watching the film it is clear to me why there was so much intrigue.

In the end, we got a different cast but in no way were they a compromise. Michael Fassbender fully embodied what the public has come to know about Steve Jobs. He is smart, cold, calculating, and outright cruel sometimes. Yet what Fassbender did here was to give us the answer the question: why? There is reason behind his actions, and watching Fassbender masterfully explore those reasons was completely fascinating. You may not agree with the man, but you will come to understand him. That was the nuance I was expecting to see, and it was delivered. Kate Winslet as Joanna Hoffman was a great addition in the movie. She was the counter balance to Steve Jobs. Winslet was the perfect companion to Fassbender's performance, drawing out more of Jobs' thought process. This film is not just about Jobs but also his relation with his daughter Lisa. We see Lisa at three different ages, and so three different actresses, but all of them fit into the narrative, and don't feel like they are just a tool to develop Jobs' character. This may have to do with the fact these child actresses were well-directed and so their interactions with Fassbender felt genuine. Another notable addition to the cast was Jeff Daniels as John Sculley. Daniels and Fassbender share the screens together multiple times, but the rising tension in their relationship is palpable, particularly in one scene that I'll come back to in a moment (no spoilers).

None of the cast would matter if it weren't for the Aaron Sorkin's script and Danny Boyles' direction. The film is structured into three parts, each a couple of hours before a major product unveiling. So a lot of major interactions occur in a short amount of time with all the important people in Jobs' life. This will seem extremely coincidental, but if you can get past that it actually serves the narrative much better. We are no longer anchored to the chronological storytelling of every other biographical film ever made. Instead the story is focused, clear, and concise, keeping the pacing consistent in a purely dialogue driven film. That brings me back to the scene between Daniels and Fassbender because it was the impeccable example of how well the dialogue was written. I was biting my nails (bad habit I know) during a scene of just two people talking!

If I had any complain it'd be that the unique structure, while resulting in an interesting way of storytelling, does hinder the director from exploring the gaps in between. Nevertheless, the performances are so captivating and the dialogues so engaging that I was fully invested into the moment. I highly recommend this film.

Quickie Review:

Adam Jones (Bradley Cooper) is a gifted chef who ruined his life and career with drugs and alcohol. Determined to get set his life and career ambitions straight, he returns to London to lead his kitchen to Michelin star status. Burnt is packed with talented actors such as Bradley Cooper, Sienna Miller, and Daniel Brühl. A lot of the weight of the movie is on their shoulders, unfortunately they could not carry it all the way through. The main problem is the beats the movie goes through are largely predictable. Quality performances make Burnt an acceptable, decent film, albeit a forgettable one.

Full Review:

Was I excited for Burnt? Honestly, not really. Then again looking at the cast I thought you couldn't go wrong to give this movie a chance. After all last year I saw Chef another foodie related drama that I happen to really like. I also like the TV show Hell's Kitchen, so any flair of Gordon Ramsay should be fun.

Actually Bradley Cooper ended up being more like Gordon Ramsay than I expected. He is a hot head, striving for perfection, and if you do anything wrong, there's going to be a huge mess of broken plates to clean up. As brilliant of a chef as Jones may be, his weakness in the kitchen is that he is old school. So seeing him fit back into the changed world of high class cuisine was interesting. Sienna Miller was also a good addition, as she's the only one who is able to stand up to the head chef. This led to some interesting face-offs in difference of opinions. For me, the best of the three main cast was Daniel Brühl. This actor deserves more praise than he receives. His portrayal of the character is subtle, his actions are motivated by love but he never draws focus to it. To him he is just doing favour or a job, nothing more. In many ways that made him feel more real of a person than any other character in the film.

That being said, I couldn't really care for the character development for long because I knew exactly where everyone was going to end up being. This includes the obligatory love story, the sweet moment with a kid, and the acceptance of responsibilities of a leader. As in any typical story structure there has to be a crisis. However, in this film that crisis occurs way too abruptly. I'll admit that in that point in the story the moment was very effective, but then every character conveniently changes to their perfect selves… I didn't see anything before that said these people were on their way to better themselves, and all that was needed was a catalyst. In other words, things happen in this movie not because it's a coherent flow to the story, but because it must fit the typical story structure of beginning, middle, climax, and resolution. So there all these pieces to the movie that are good on their own, but don't fit well together.

By no means do I hate this movie. It is sufficient. If you are looking for some good performances with great looking food being prepared by great looking people, you couldn't ask for anything more perfect. On the other hand if you require a little more meat to the bone (substance to the story), you are better off waiting.

Quickie Review:

The Galactic Empire has fallen, but thirty years later from its ashes rises a new threat to The Republic. A rag-tag group of heroes and resistance fighters must come together to face The First Order and the dangerous new weapon they've built. Meanwhile, the mysterious figure known as Kylo Ren is on a mission to finish the journey to the dark side, following his idol Darth Vader. Star Wars TFA, is not perfect but it is the film the fans have been aching for. The focus is back on the characters and their relations, set in the grand operatic setting of Star Wars. Familiar heroes are back to bring out your nostalgia but more importantly the new cast make an impactful impression, leaving you excited to see more of them in the future films. TFA does traverse some familiar plots from the original story but sets the stage for exciting adventures ahead without sacrificing the thrill of this film. If you aren't one of the millions already seen the film in the first weekend, make sure you aren't missing out soon.

Full Review:

At work I've seemed to have built up a reputation of being a rabid fan of Star Wars. Though that's true, I am a huge fan of the franchise, the fandom all over the world goes far beyond. Considering the hate towards the prequels, many fans including myself had their hopes riding on TFA. Thankfully, the movie was able to re-capture the magic of the original Star Wars.

While we do see some of our favourite characters returning, the focus of the movie is truly on the new cast. First of all, the two leading heroes Rey (Daisy Ridley) and Finn (Jon Boyega) are instantly likable. These are not the one note characters of the prequels, they are layered and have growth that feels natural. Their charming personalities had me invested in the perils they are thrusted into. On the darker end, we have Kylo Ren so wonderfully portrayed by Adam Driver. He deserves the honour of being a great addition to Star Wars hall of villainy. In just one film I got to know so much about his conflicts and ambitions. Yet at the same time there is still a veil of mystery on the character, an intrigue behind him that I can't wait to see be explored more in the later films. We also get to see more characters from the original trilogy, the highlight of which was Han Solo. At no point did it feel like he was just playing this role again for some easy cash. He was right at home playing Han which made it all the more fun for me to watch him return to this beloved franchise. Other recognisable icons are used in a smart way, with moderation as to not grab the attention away from the story.

Aside from the great cast, I enjoyed the way the film was shot. One of the biggest point of their marketing was the use of practical effects, and it pays off. I will make the claim now, this film will age much better than the prequels, because everything feels authentic and tangible. The practical effects brought a sense of realism to the fantasy of this world. The action scenes were beautifully shot with all the dogfights and gunfights getting your blood pumping. On top of that I loved the light sabre fights. There are no fancy CGI jumps and twirls, instead it was a messy fight for survival, driven purely by rage and fear. These weren't scenes for just spectacle but ones that furthered the growth of the characters involved, a critical moment in their journey with the Force. I'd like to say more about some scenes that I feel will become iconic in the future but I will leave that for you to experience.

Though I loved the film, it is not perfect. The main issue it comes down to is the fact there are too many similar story points in TFA borrowed directly from the original trilogy. So for the most part the movie plays it quite safe. At the same time my main complain of the prequels was that they don't feel like a Star Wars adventure. However, TFA does capture that sense of magic and adventure of Star Wars, so in a way borrowing the story elements did help. Moving forwards I'd like to see newer ideas come into play but that's something to discuss in 1.5 years from now (let the countdown begin for Episode 8!).

Again if you aren't one of the millions who have rushed out to see it, don't wait too long. Go now and experience what we've always loved about Star Wars, great heroes, great villains, great action, and great mythology. Star Wars The Force Awakens gives me confidence in the future of this franchise.

Quickie Review:

When a Soviet spy (Mark Rylance) in the height of the Cold War is arrested, James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) is recruited to defend him in an American trial. Meanwhile an American pilot is captured by the Soviets, thrusting Donovan into the responsibility of negotiating between two world powers on the brink of war. Bridge of Spies, balances the gravity of politics on a world stage with the relations and fears of the people behind it all. This film is yet another great example of what Spielberg and Hanks can achieve when they team up together. Will this be a classic from years to come? I expect not, but the quality of acting and directing is undeniable.

Full Review:

Considering Spielberg being one of the best directors and Hanks being one of the best actors in the Hollywood business, it is hard not to get excited for this movie. I'm not completely familiar with the real-world story, so I can't say much on the accuracy but on the movie of course I have my opinion to share.

In terms of the performances, everybody was flawless but the clear stand-outs for me was Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance. The character Donovan is unwavering when it comes to his duty as a lawyer, even when he has to defend an enemy of his country. He believes in the importance of unbiased justice, so strongly that at first it may come off as naïve. However, there are understated moments where we can see clearly his resolve being tested to the limits. Mark Rylance as the Soviet spy, is a man of few words but with that limitation he is able to convey so much about the character. He is defeated and fearful for his life, but when Donovan shows that there is still hope he will crack a joke. The key here is subtlety, that brings the power into the more dramatic moments without it feeling forced. I didn't feel like I was watching actors, I felt like I was watching real people.

Another aspect that really grabbed my attention is the Cold War setting. It is of course the perfect time period for any political thriller story (a real one at that). Despite it being decades ago, it is hard not to see the parallels between the Cold War era and present day. We get to see the xenophobia in USA surrounding communists and Soviet spies, people quick to draw conclusions from their emotion. Could we really say things are any different now? Unfortunately not. So it is interesting how the movie feels relevant in modern day politics. The second half of the movie shows the delicate nature of negotiations. There are moments of manipulations, lies, and deceit. Yet through all that a trust has to be built to have any movement in the talks. How the characters try to build that relation for mutual benefit is what intrigued me the most.

I only have one complain, that is it feels like two movies in one. The first half feels like legal drama, and the second half is a political thriller. So I would've liked more consistency between the two plot lines. Bridge of Spies, in the end achieves the authenticity in its characters and the setting. That's why I highly recommend seeing this movie. Personally, movies (not documentaries) that are based on real stories should prioritise authenticity and not accuracy. That I think are two very different things that deserves a whole entire post to explain.

Quickie Review:

In an alternate world where Earth is not catastrophically hit by an asteroid, dinosaurs have evolved and are thriving. Arlo, a young Apatosaurus is accidentally separated from his family. He must overcome his fears with the help of his unlikely human friend Spot, and survive the journey to find his family. The Good Dinosaur, is a great family friendly animation that lives up to the Pixar reputation of innocent humour and emotional beats that tug at your heart. On a technical side, this is a marvellous looking animation, perhaps their most advanced movie yet. On the story front however, the creativity is lacking. Nevertheless the movie is executed well, sure to be an entertaining time with friends and family.

Full Review:

Pixar, as I've said in the past is arguably one of the best studios in the business, and will always attract an audience no matter what they release. So loved are their films that perhaps we get too upset at even the small flaws of the movie. Now, by no means is The Good Dinosaur one of Pixar's best, but it certainly has the charm we've come to know from their previous work.

The interesting twist here is that the dinosaurs and humans have switched the roles of animals and "civilised" beings. We see dinosaurs that farm or herd livestock or equivalent to a crazy cat lady a dinosaur that obsessively collects pets. There are plenty of colourful characters, and the ways in which human behaviour is blended into each of them is quite clever. The focus and true gem of the movie is the growing relationship between Arlo and Spot. Of the two only Arlo has dialogue but it's in the quiet moments that the movie is most impactful. Both share a tragedy in their lives and they are depending on each other. So when we see the lengths they will go to for each other, it is genuine and heartfelt that does not need to be put into words. As for the animation itself, it is absolutely gorgeous. The landscapes are so photo-realistic that you might wonder at times if you are watching an animation or actual footage. The animals are more cartoon-ish but it is a contrast that actually works, and perhaps helps soften the negatives I'm about to explain.

All Pixar animations try to cater to audiences of all ages. Humour wise I think this movie strikes that balance well. However, I must give a small warning to parents with very young children about the violence. Now it is not graphic, it's still given a cartoon treatment, but as a full grown adult even I must admit there were some scenes that caught me by surprise that it's in a kid's movie. This may be a concern for some parents so that's why I bring it up, otherwise don't worry about it. On the other hand the lack of creativity in the plot is something that everyone will notice. Compared to Inside Out the bare-bones story here has been seen time and time again. So don't expect to be blown away by something new.

All in all, The Good Dinosaur is well… a good movie. Sure the story is unoriginal, but it is one that resonates with the audience because of the relationship of Arlo and Spot. With the holiday season coming up, this a great option for the family to enjoy together. And prepare yourself to get emotional over a cartoon dino.

P.S. If you are of Indian descent like me, with Hindu parents. You will love the short shown before the movie. It instantly transported me back to my childhood Saturday mornings.

Quickie Review:

War is escalating, both the Capitol and the Resistance are at a point of desperation. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), the reluctant face of the rebellion must continue her role as a propaganda icon. At the same time she wants vengeance for all the pain and suffering President Snow (Donald Sutherland) inflicted on her and everyone she holds dear. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 is gruellingly overstretched, it is clear that splitting the movie into two parts really hurt the movie as a whole. Simply put, it is not engaging or entertaining. The continuous drab tone makes an already long movie difficult to bear.

Full Review:

I like the first two films of the franchise, I even state that in my review of Part 1. However, it all changed when I saw Mockingjay Part 1. I thought it was a decent movie but a definite step back in the franchise. I went into Part 2 hoping this would be the payoff for all the melodrama we had to endure in the previous film. Surprisingly, I found this movie to be even worse!

The positive for most people will be the cast. They probably performed better than the script deserved. Especially, President Snow as the antagonist continues a menacing presence in Katniss' struggle in the war. Unlike Part 1, there are some exciting sequences of action but they are just too far and few between. Nevertheless, I enjoyed these parts of the movie because they rid of the constant shaky cam of the previous films and had better shot composition. So this is as good as the finale is going to look.

About a year ago after watching Part 1 I was irritated by the fact it was split into two parts, little did I know I'd be even more frustrated with Part 2. First of all this movie is just a collection of going from one checkpoint to the other. ACTION SEQUENCE – people sitting down and having long depressing talk – now rinse and repeat that several times. Even these talks, the long runs of dialogue are about things the characters having been trying to figure out since the first film. A major example of this is the love-triangle of Peeta, Katniss, and the pretty boy Hemsworth Jr. See, we are four movies in and that's how little I care about this love-triangle that I don't even know the name of the third person in the bloody triangle! Even the audience I watched it with audibly "ugh"ed whenever that came up. I won't go too much into plot but there are some major twists and turns that our main characters uncover. However, due to the splitting of the story, the build-up in Part 1 doesn't have the same momentum into Part 2. Which only led me to question Katniss' intelligence for not being able to see what's clearly obvious to the viewers. I also mentioned how depressing and drab the tone of the movie was. I understand that this is a war, and they are difficult times, but there are ways to bring some levity while respecting the circumstances. Speaking of war, where the hell is the war!? That's right, we don't even see the war in this movie. All we hear is distant gunfire that's it because we are only following one small squad that are only there to shoot propaganda.

This is the studio mocking the audience for spending money on blatantly clear cash-grabs. Thankfully I have a monthly movie pass so I don't pay extra, but if you are thinking of spending your hard earned money on a movie to watch, this is one to avoid. There so many instances of snail crawling pace, Part 1 and 2 could've been combined to be one good 2-2.5 hour movie. At the same time I can't fault the producers for the decision because it is clearly paying off for them in the bank account.

Quickie Review:

Obsessed with winning the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong (Ben Foster) uses performance enhancing substances to gain the edge. Meanwhile, sports journalist David Walsh (Chris O'Dowd) convinced of the doping conspiracy starts to gather evidence to expose Armstrong. The Program, is an underwhelming retelling of the one of the biggest drug scandals in sports history. Admittedly the actor's performances are good, and the movie overall is shot well. However, the script and the story telling are to the quality of what you might expect from an average TV documentary re-enactment.

Full Review:

Considering the high profile nature of the scandal, I was surprised that The Program wasn't marketed more. I never saw the trailers in the cinemas and when I brought up that I was going to watch this movie in the weekend I was immediately asked by everyone "What's that?" After watching the film it's clear to me that even the studio lacked confidence in the final product.

Few as they may be, there are certainly some redeeming things about The Program. The lead actor Ben Foster gave a solid performance, at a certain point I didn't see him anymore and only saw Lance. Which probably is the biggest compliment I'll give to this movie. I also enjoyed seeing the whole doping operation, it was meticulous and systematic. I really got the sense of the lengths that Lance and his team went to achieve their goals. Although it is definitely disgraceful, I must admit I was rather impressed by how for so long they got away with it all. So I commend the filmmakers for pulling off that aspect of the story. As for the rest of the story, there's more to be desired.

You couldn't ask for better true story material for a sports drama. There was huge potential here, but all of it is lost because of the paint by the numbers approach to the film. Rather than concentrating on a singular character and see them transform over the course of the movie, The Program opts to also give significant spotlight to David Walsh and Floyd Landis (Jesse Plemons). This causes the movie to lose focus with each change. The structure of movie made it blatantly obvious that the director and the editor prioritised showing a checklist of major events in Lance's life rather than telling a coherent story. An example of this false priorities was the introduction of Lance's wife. The whole segment of them meeting lasts for about 45 seconds, we get a quick look at a wedding, and that's it, we never see her again for the rest of the movie. That small segment was just there to show Lance got married at one point. It felt completely unnecessary, instead I would love to have seen how this whole operation affected his relationships and friendships.

The Program, is a movie that no-one knows about and unfortunately will be a forgettable experience for the ones who do watch it. I think if I had caught this as a re-enacted documentary on TV, I'd be really impressed. However when it comes to biographically movies in cinemas it just doesn't hold up to the standard set by recent movies such as The Social Network or Selma for example.

Quickie Review:

After receiving a message from his past James (Daniel Craig) is compelled to take on an unauthorised mission. While MI6 struggles to show the relevance of the 00-programme in the modern era of intelligence, James uncovers the truth behind the secret world- influencing organisation known too few as Spectre. Spectre while not the best of Craig's Bond films, is definitely a worthy addition to the franchise. The film is filled to the brim with incredible action set pieces and acting talent. However the weakness of the movie is glaringly apparent in its inability to make the threat of the villain feel menacing. Spectre despite not being the complete package manages to be stylish and entertaining.

Full Review:

Though I was not a fan of Quantum of Solace, I really enjoyed the other two Daniel Craig Bond films. With Sam Mendes returning as director and stroke of genius to cast Christoph Waltz as a Bond villain, I was excited to see Bond's new spy adventure. In the end Spectre did not meet my high expectations, but that not at all means it was a bad movie.

Sam Mendes directorial style is instantly identifiable from the opening sequence. There is clear intention behind how he uses the setting to establish the tone of the scenes. When the pace is slowed there is tension building from the rhythmic beats and movement of the camera. That built tension is paid off with the thrilling action set-pieces that balances right at the edge of chaos. This happens throughout the movie and is absolutely thrilling! The cinematography of the film sucks you right into even the quietest moments, and that makes the rather long 148min runtime feel like it passed by swiftly. Most importantly, Daniel Craig has really grown into the James Bond role with all his mannerisms, humour, and flirtatious charm we've come to associate with this iconic character. This is the most Bond we've seen him yet, so for the Craig doubters out there, you can go into this movie a little less worried. Also the supporting characters M, Moneypenny, and Q had more of a part to play, even some going into the field to help out. Since Bond is always portrayed as a one man army, it's a nice change to see his team take more initiative in the mission.

Spectre promised to show how Bond's past comes back to haunt him. While that is achieved to a certain extent, it all feels undeserved because nothing has been done to set up the reveal. It ends up coming off as an afterthought put together haphazardly. However, the most disappointing of all is the misuse of Christoph Waltz. Look I get it, Spectre the organisation as the name implies is supposed to be elusive, including its leader. Still by keeping him in the shadows till the very last act leaves his goals and ideological ambition lacking significant impact. In contrast Dave Bautista posed a much bigger threat physically, and I was hoping Waltz would be his intellectual equivalent.

There is no denying there are few major issues and yet I must admit I had fun with Spectre. The potential to create a new iconic Bond villain was a complete missed opportunity, causing me to not resonate with Waltz's character. Aside from that there is little to complain. It's a cinematic experience from beginning to the end. So suit up, grab a glass of martini shaken not stirred (drink responsibly), sit back, relax, and enjoy the spy adventure.

Quickie Review:

Mike Howell (Jesse Eisenberg) is a stoner living in a middle-of-no- where small town, that's all he knows. What he doesn't know is that in fact he is a government agent who is now a liability to the CIA. With skilled agents tasked to hunt down Mike, he must remember his training and survive the night. Pineapple Express meets Bourne, that is literally the best way to describe American Ultra. Don't be afraid to put logic and expectation of deep story aside. Just enjoy the violent non-stop action with fair bit of hilarity. A nice little action flick to gorge down ungodly amounts of popcorn and soda.

Full Review:

The film is written by Max Landis. He is known for taking tired out concepts and turning it on its head to do something fresh. Yes American Ultra has a very simplistic story, but the plot device of a stoner turned agent is just unique enough to provide an entertaining premise.

The fact that the film is simple works in its favour. We are given just the right amount of exposition for us to understand the context of his skill and why the CIA is after him. From that point forward we jump right into the action. The fight scenes and shoot outs in American Ultra were excellent, especially the climax that was shot in one- take. I don't know what it says about me but I love it when action movies are not ashamed or scared of going gory violent. This movie fully embraces the violence, which comes with some gruesome kills that will make you cringe and go "OOOO! SSSSSS! That has gotta hurt!" Also because of some of the absurdity involved, there are funny moments that kept the lighter tone of the movie. Something I did not expect was also a competently told love story subplot. Kristen Stewart and Jesse Eisenberg were an excellent couple taking on the threats together.

There will be no disagreement in terms of what didn't work: Topher Grace. Oh dear lord, his character was irritating! It was like watching a 5 year old on the floor of a store crying because his parents won't buy him a toy. Every single one of his scenes is him overacting and trying to be dominant. It just comes off pathetic. That was partly intentional I admit that, but still doesn't change the fact that he was unbearable to watch.

Aside from Topher Grace, everything in the movie clicked. It was a concise action ride, with a little bit of heart and comedy thrown in for good measure. Sit back, relax (in a legal way of course), and enjoy some fun mayhem.

Quickie Review:

Amy (Amy Schumer) in her adulthood has become commitment-phobic strongly influenced by her abandoning father. When she reluctantly takes on a project to interview Aaron (Bill Hader), Amy starts to have strong feelings for him. However, her years of commitment issues might just be too much for their relationship to handle. There is a lot to like about Trainwreck in terms of the comedy and talented cast. At the same time there is a lot to hate, most important of which is the clichéd romantic-comedy story. While the movie starts off strong with some gut-busting laughter, and the promise for something fresh, the predictable story makes an already dragged out film feel like a chore to watch.

Full Review:

Judd Apatow directed one of my favourite comedies that I was probably too young to have seen when it came out, The 40 Year Old Virgin. With other prominent comedians in the cast of Trainwreck I was curious to see how his latest project turned out. His directorial stamp is still apparent, but it takes huge nose-dive in the latter half of the movie.

Full disclosure, I am not a fan of Amy Schumer as a comedian. I think that she relies too much on immature crass shock factor to get the laughs. But even with that opinion, I found that Schumer was actually quite funny in the film. Which surprised me since she wrote the script. Even though it does get a little raunchy at times the jokes really hit their mark especially in the first half of the movie. Bill Hader was great addition to the movie. The relationship between Amy and Hader's character felt realistic, with few extremes for the dramatic tension of course. On top of that the cameos from different athletes and comedians worked really well. It's obvious they are not the greatest actors, but they were used sparingly and wisely. So there were definitely some unexpected laughs from people you don't see in comedies.

Then it all changes in the second half. At one point there is total 180 degree flip in the tone, from a comedy to a drama (at times melodrama). It's such a drastic change that it almost feels like you are watching a different movie than the one advertised. Aside from that, the combination of sinfully long runtime and clichéd storyline didn't help either. Think of any, literally any romantic comedy movie and voilà you know all the plot points this film will cover. By almost completely abandoning the comedic tone, it was difficult to bear the mediocre drama.

Trainwreck, much like the lead character is not a complete package. You enjoy the ride, the jokes and so on, but as the movie goes on, you start to wonder if you are wasting your time. If you are going to watch this, you have to be fully aware to expect two different movies in one.

Quickie Review:

Life in Inglewood is tough, but for Malcolm (Shameik Moore), a geek obsessed with 90s hip-hop it's even tougher. After visiting an underground party hosted by gangsters, Malcolm crosses upon an unwanted package. This leads him and his friends on a dangerous adventure filled with oddball strangers. Dope is a witty comedy the breaks down the expected stereotypes. The trio of main actors have a natural chemistry of close knit high school friends, from loyalty to friendly ridicule. This is an adventure that has many laugh-out-loud moments to enjoy.

Full Review:

I am not well aware of the cast and director. However, trailer sold me on an energetic comedy that explored the issues of racism. Happy to say it delivered on my expectations.

I talk a lot about the importance of actor chemistry in my reviews, and this movie is a great example of doing that right. Shameik Moore, Kiersey Clemons, and Tony Revolori all worked really well together. With already a smart script the comedic timing of the cast is what brought the fun in the movie. Just the way in which they interact you can tell how strong their friendship is, and so you are rooting for them through all the shenanigans. Especially Shameik Moore surprised me on how well he portrayed a geek. He never overplays the stereotype of being a nerd, it's all in the subtle things that he does that we see him as a misfit. As for the shenanigans the gang goes through, at times it gets non-sensical, and in that non-sense hilarity ensues. In many ways it reminded me of Superbad, but a little darker. Additionally the soundtrack of the movie was excellent, it kept up the energetic flow of the movie.

The faults of the movie are small but apparent. A lot of the movie is dependent on long scenes of dialogue, but this doesn't always fit well with the tone of the film. One example that stands out is the meeting with the drug-dealer. To show how creepy that character is the actor overacts and it pulled me out of the movie. So there are few moments where the supporting cast overact which diminishes the clever tone of the movie. Also Dope has some mixed messaging in terms of how success should be achieved. I'd go into more detail but that'd involve some spoilers.

Overall, Dope is well-directed and -acted film that covers issues of discrimination and stereotypes in a sharp comedic way. Shameik Moore was the stand-out performance of the movie, and I hope to see him in more films in the future. If you are looking for a dark-comedy with colourful characters, then look no further than this adventure.

Quickie Review:

Lily Day (Charlize Theron), was eight years old when she witnessed the murder of her family that led to the conviction of her brother. Now decades after the murder Lily revisits the case, which uncovers some disturbing truths behind the events of the murder. Dark Places, conceptually is a very interesting story. The movies explores both the present and past with flashbacks so more and more clues are revealed for the audience to decipher. However, somewhere along the way the movie starts to lose track, resulting in an end that should have wowed but instead will leave you asking "is that it?"

Full Review:

Dark Places is an adaption of the novel by Gillian Flynn, the same person who authored Gone Girl. And we all remember the film version of Gone Girl that shocked everyone (except the readers) in cinemas last year. So of course I had to check out Dark Places. Unfortunately I think my expectations were too high.

The performance by the talented Charlize Theron was great. She gets the audience to change your opinion about her character. You dislike her at first but as you get to understand her tortured side, you start to empathise with her. Christina Hendricks had a crucial role to anchor the flashbacks which she did flawlessly. The movie does a lot of things right associated with a good murder-mystery. The clues are always showed to us rather than being told what to believe. It leaves us to decide who the prime suspect is, and that constantly shifts as more and more evidence is uncovered. That is what grabbed my attention for most of the movie. The title of the movie is perfect, because the story does go into dark places. All the characters are more intriguing because they all have some hidden guilt and secrets that they are afraid to admit.

The film has a good hook where a sister may have accidentally sentenced her brother to prison for a crime that he may not have committed. However, as the film progresses, very early on the audience can make some very important conclusions, that I believe we shouldn't have been able to. I'm not saying it's completely predictable but rather that because we have already made these (correct) conclusions, any scenes that start to contradict that starts to feel unnecessary and is an obvious mislead. So there ends up being several scenes that are not adding to the process of solving the case. Ultimately this makes the story more complicated than it needed to be, and I didn't feel the final impact of the truth.

Don't get me wrong, Dark Places is certainly a serviceable movie. There is some mystery-solving entertainment to be had. Yet the execution of the story by over complicating the case for the sake of false leads is what essentially left the movie from reaching its potential.

Quickie Review:

A criminal organisation is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. In the height of cold war a CIA agent Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) and KGB operative Illya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer) put aside their differences for a joint mission. This uneasy alliance must succeed to ensure world stability. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is a surprisingly fun homage to the earlier Bond type films. The team-up of two rivals for a common mission also added a new twist to an otherwise predictable story. The stylised approach to the film is part of the charm and the great chemistry among the cast brought moments of amusing tongue-in-cheek humour.

Full Review:

I am not familiar with the original show, it was way before my generation. However, with the dark tones of many blockbusters nowadays, it's refreshing to return to a lighter and more vibrant movie in the spy-genre. On top of that with Guy Ritchie directing, known for his witty dialogue and often odd humour, I had to check out his latest effort.

The style of the movie is what will immediately grab the attention of the audience. Although it may be a little over-romanticised, Guy Ritchie beautifully captures the glamour of the 60s. From the locales, cars, outfits, even the music are all aesthetically rich and beautiful. Still this movie is not all style, the three major characters are perfectly cast leading to an entertaining chemistry among them. Henry Cavill plays the more suave gentleman using his charisma to get what he wants. Whereas Armie Hammer's character is a more rugged man, and you really don't want to be on his bad side. These differences between the two complement well with each other and that's why half the fun of the movie is just watching them interact. The third major character is played by Alicia Vikander, a resourceful woman who should not be underestimated. And thank god, they didn't introduce any useless love triangle here. I was afraid that Vikander's character's only purpose would be a love interest, but she is very much integral to the mission. Although this is an homage to the early spy movies it is still quite grounded, in that there are no ridiculous gadgets. So I like how they were able to balance the realism with the stylised nature of the movie.

At the same time a spy homage does come with its disadvantages. The threat in the story is very predictable, and you know exactly where it is going. There are no major surprises, and most likely even the little twists you will see them coming from miles away. Nevertheless the movie is peppered with clever humour and even the obvious innuendos are funny because of the characters, that you have satisfying ride. On a side note, there was a missed opportunity with Hammer's character, Illya. The movie constantly refers to his rage but we never really witness him fully lose control. I would've liked to have seen more of that side of him than being simply suggested to us.

Overall, my friends and I had an entertaining time in the cinema watching The Man from U.N.C.L.E. If you are looking for a funny adventure or action-comedy to enjoy with your friends and family, this is a very good choice for you to consider. In fact, I'd say I would actually like to see a sequel to this movie and go on more spy adventures with these characters.

Quickie Review:

Genius young scientist Reed Richards (Miles Teller) builds a teleportation device to another dimension. After visiting the other dimension a tragic accident leaves the four young outsiders with shocking new abilities. As an old threat comes back, the four must team up to face Doom (Toby Kebbell) together. Fantastic Four is a failure on multiple levels. The characters are underdeveloped, the pacing is completely off, the villain is generic and bland, the story is lacking, and most importantly it is not fun. Fantastic Four is so dull, with little redeeming qualities that it may cause you to think that the previous attempts at this franchise were actually decent in comparison.

Full Review:

What happened!? I was among the few in my group of friends who was genuinely excited and was rooting for this new incarnation of the Fantastic Four. It has a great cast, writer, and director, all the essentials to make a good movie but somehow, almost nothing clicked.

It is a pity that the movie didn't work considering the cast. They were the one decent aspect of the entire movie. Despite the occasional awkward dialogue, at least they gave it their all to their respective roles. In fact they may be the reason why in the first 30mins I thought "this isn't so bad, what was all the fuss about?" Of course, I spoke too soon because the movie randomly starts to lose track of its own plot.

Where do I even begin with the negatives? I am not an avid Fantastic Four comic reader but even I know that they are supposed to be a family. At no point did I feel them sincerely bonding with each other. Near the end they throw a couple of punches together for about a minute, and that apparently constitutes as teamwork. It all felt contrived, only Reed and Ben's relationship was believable and that's because we see them together as kids in the beginning of the movie. Other than that it makes no sense why these four would be working together. And that's not something I should be questioning!!!

Then the pacing, or lack there off. The problem is that the purpose of the whole movie is to setup the characters of the Fantastic Four for the next movie. So there is no coherent storyline. It is just stuffed with filler scenes of people sitting in front of computers, people deeply brooding, or lame practice montage to fill the run- time till the villain shows up.

As for the villain, first of all, the character design for Doom is horrendous. He looks like a crash test dummy with a burnt curtain on his head. He has one of the shallowest motivations for being villain. Then, in a typical dumb villain style, is almighty powerful that he can literally blow people's heads with his mind but will refuse to use this power against the heroes. Because you know, you don't want to make things too easy for yourself right?

The biggest sin of this movie is that it feels like the film studio and creator are ashamed at even the idea of Fantastic Four. These characters in comics are colourful and have funny banter with each other. But the filmmakers were so concerned about coming off campy that they went unnecessarily dark to the point that even the characters don't embrace their hero names. We live in a day and age where audiences are embracing a talking tree, gun-toting raccoon, and a guy who controls ants. So show some pride in the fact that you are the Fantastic Four! Or at least fake it so we feel less ashamed of watching this fantastic disaster.

Everything that could go wrong with this film, went wrong. There was so much potential, and you see glimpses of that in the first 30- 45mins of the movies. But then the movie quickly divulges into a meandering plot that concludes with one of the most abrupt endings in recent times. You better off watching the 2005 or 2007 Fantastic Four movies… and I can't believe I am saying that.

Quickie Review:

A rogue international organisation known as the Syndicate aim to dismantle the IMF and control the world in secrecy. Ethan (Tom Cruise) and his team must take on the seemingly impossible task to uncover the secret organisation and stop them before their influence grows. MI Rogue Nation, has all the right ingredients for a fun summer blockbuster: thrilling action, memorable villain, humour, intrigue of uncertain allegiances, and Tom Cruise unnecessarily risking his life doing stunts for the awe of the audience. Together these ingredients work so well for majority of the movie, but at one point too much of one of these aspects starts to leave a hint of a bad aftertaste. Nevertheless, as a whole the movie is a satisfying ride to be enjoyed with some buttery popcorn goodness.

Full Review:

I loved the last Mission: Impossible so no-brainer I was really looking forward for Rogue Nation. After the Burj Khalifa scene, it was hard to imagine how they'd recapture that thrill ride. Somehow they have managed to pull it off again.

Say what you will about Tom Cruise in his personal life, but he is a born action-star, and for an action movie that's all that matters. The way he puts himself through these incredible stunts, is what brings so much excitement to the movie. These scenes could've had a faceless stuntman and it would have been acceptable, but the fact that we see Cruise and know that he is really hanging on to that plane, really driving the bike in a high speed chase, brings a sense of realism that can't be duplicated in any other way. That is by far the most impressive part of the movie. The rest of the cast were also integral to the story, nobody felt wasted. The stand-outs however, has to be the newcomers Rebecca Ferguson and Sean Harris. Ferguson plays a British agent, a skilled assassin whose allegiance is not exactly clear. She is not a damsel in distress and could kick everyone's ass just as effectively as Ethan Hunt. Sean Harris is the face behind the Syndicate, a great villain that really challenges Ethan with ease. Villains haven't always been a strong point for MI movies but Harris brought this modern twist to an almost old-school Bond like villain.

As I said I had fun with this movie but I can't ignore the major problem. Switching allegiances and hidden agendas of characters are pretty par for the course in MI movies. So including these scenes is not my complaint, but it's the overuse that's the issue. The first few times it adds uncertainty into the mix, making the film more intriguing. But at one point every character start to switch allegiances or reveal their own secret goals so regularly that it starts to feel very contrived. All these twists just boil down to conveniences that move the plot along. I would've preferred that these twists were natural outcome of the plot rather than a quick fix for plot holes.

In the end, if you are looking for a summer action blockbuster, MI Rogue Nation is definitely a good choice. Some of most gripping set- pieces of the summer are in this movie, especially the car/bike chase in Morocco. In my opinion Ghost Protocol was a better film overall but Rogue Nation is still a worthy addition to the franchise.

Quickie Review:

Damian (Ben Kingsley), dying from cancer uses his vast resource of wealth to go through a medical procedure to transfer his consciousness to a younger and healthier body. While the initial thrill of being young again excites him, he soon notices symptoms that make him question the origin of his new body. In his search for the truth behind the procedure, he is hunted down by the organisation behind it all. Self/Less has a premise that feels familiar but is still an interesting concept. Due to the familiarity there are no big surprises and the story is pretty much paint by the numbers action flick. However, as a whole Self/Less is still an enjoyable movie, albeit a tad too long.

Full Review:

Self/Less had barely any marketing where I live so I knew very little about the movie. Yet from what I saw, I was interested because it reminded me of an 90s type sci-fi action, similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger's Total Recall. A sci-fi plot just to give our hero enough motive for some action.

The idea of transferring consciousness was the most intriguing part about the movie. Although this is quite a small movie in terms of scope, the "science" (don't want to risk pissing off a neurologist who might read this) of it was pretty well thought out. There are rules and limitations to how the procedure works and develops. The cast work pretty well together, their chemistry is believable in the circumstances they are placed. Matthew Goode as the villain was a great fit. He never pulls a punch or trigger, but you know he is dangerous and formidable. What director Tarsem Singh really did well was developing the motives for each of the characters. In fact, he spent so much time on the characters that I hesitate to call this movie a pure action.

This brings me to the pitfalls of the movie, one of which was that the movie was too long. I liked characters and I appreciate the effort put into developing them. Nevertheless there are definitely numerous scenes that could've been trimmed and still hold that level of character development. Another missed opportunity was with the dual personality of the Ryan Reynold's character. He is a good actor but here it felt like he was just playing himself. At no point could I tell that's Ben Kingsley in Reynold's body. It would've been really interesting to have him portray two vastly different personalities.

In the end, I was satisfied with the movie. Yes there are some story problems, but the cast chemistry and the sci-fi element will keep you interested in the movie. I wouldn't say you need to rush out to see it immediately, but it's a worthy lazy Sunday couch watch.

Quickie Review:

Brilliant scientist Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), in his desperation turns to con-man Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) for help. Together with a suit that has the ability to shrink the wearer and control hordes of ants, Scott must pull off a heist in an effort to save Hank's research from falling into wrong hands. Ant-Man is the funniest movie in the current Marvel Cinematic Universe. With gut- busting comedy, incredible visuals, and beautifully orchestrated action, this movie clearly shows that the Ant-Man is not to be underestimated. Ant-Man is the perfect blend of action and comedy that makes for one of the more enjoyable blockbusters of this summer.

Full Review:

It's not surprising that the initial reaction of the general audience when they hear the concept of an Ant-Man is one of ridicule. However, this character has been critical in many of Marvel comic stories. So the question became can they really translate one of their smallest comic book characters on the biggest screen? The answer is a resounding yes.

The main cast of this film were perfect for the tone of the film. Paul Rudd has been supporting character in lot of my favourite comedy films, but here he takes centre stage with his quick wit and charm. At the same time he is not just some joker, and is a completely capable action hero. Whoever casted Michael Douglas as an older Hank Pym was a stroke of genius. Even though he is not the main character he brings so much depth to his role. There is a lot back story to him and in just few moments he is able to convey how that affects him. Also he is not just some grumpy old man, he won't hold back in pulling a punch or two if he needs too. The absolute show stealer is Michael Peña as Luis. I don't invoke God very often, but Oh My God he was hilarious. He is such likable guy that won't let anything take away his smile and so you smile with him. Then, when he starts to tell his stories, prepare for continuous stream of laughter. I would listen to him tell me stories every day. The only weakness for me has to be the villain. I found him to be very shallow and one note. Considering how well the rest of the cast was developed, it's a pity that Corey Stoll's addition was wasted.

Apart from the characters, what makes this movie stand out is the action like we have never seen before. The shifting of scale from large to small was very well used in the fight choreography. The movements had a lot of power behind them and the Ant-Man felt like an unstoppable force. The small scale scenes were ironically the most grand set- pieces of the movie. It was a different way of looking at the world and it was beautiful. Oh, and don't forget the ants! Ant-Man can also control armies of ants and yes they were fascinating creatures that were way more useful in the missions than you might expect. They were basically another member of the heist team.

What I appreciated most about Ant-Man, is the fact that this is a heist movie. With the current trend of comic book movies always setting the stakes higher and higher, with the end of world is nigh, it is nice to pull back a little and tell a much smaller story. The stakes are only high here because of the characters and the father- daughter relationships. In that sense there is a more relatable motive.

So don't underestimate this film, go and watch it. You will laugh more here than most comedies, and meanwhile be enjoying a f-ant- astic cinematic micro world. Paul Rudd and the gang are a great new addition to the MCU.

Quickie Review:

Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) is sent back to 1984 by the leader of the human resistance John Connor (Jason Clarke), to protect his mother Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke). When Kyle arrives, everything is not as it used to be. Sarah and Kyle, in their quest to safeguard the future make unexpected allies and face dangerous enemies. Terminator Genisys aims to reset the timeline of the all the stories that have come before to try and bring a fresh new take on the franchise. While that is a good idea in principle, the execution of the plan is not a complete success. Arnold Schwarzenegger is still a great Terminator, and he is the highlight of the movie. There also some clever tie-ins with the previous movies. However, the action scenes were nothing special, the villain's motive seems lacking, and the chemistry between Sarah and Kyle was just plain annoying. Terminator Genisys is yet another let down in the franchise.

Full Review:

I love the first two Terminator movies, even decades later they are still amongst the best sci-fi action movies ever made. So you would think I would hate the idea of those stories being reset by Terminator Genisys. Quite the contrary, I like the idea of an alternate timeline because then the writers aren't shackled to what has come before and tell fresh new stories. Though they did take advantage of that freedom, the end result was not completely satisfying.

Arnold Schwarznegger, our favourite Terminator is back! I was a little concerned that they will keep making jokes on how old he is. They do point it out, but he is still kicking major butts in all the action scenes and still is that likable socially clueless robot. I also thought the relationship that Sarah Connor and the Terminator had was really interesting. It was a great evolution of Sarah's feelings towards him from fear in Terminator, to hesitant alliance in Terminator 2, to now a complete embrace of him as almost a surrogate father. It was as if they were paying homage to John's and Terminator's relation in Terminator 2, where Sarah contemplated that he may be the best father figure John could ever have. There are lot of these homages in the movie that I really appreciated. I'll leave them for you to find, but I recommend re-watching the first two films for the easter egg hunting.

Reading those positives, you might be wondering what was so wrong that I rated the movie so low? Well, I'll explain. First of all, the action in this movie is very generic. It's not that it was poorly shot, it was simply not memorable. Once again we have Golden Gate Bridge chase, Terminator being thrown through walls and windows, terminators taking on absurd amount of bullets as they moved slowly across the hall. Nothing about it excited me. Second, the constant bickering between Sarah and Kyle was almost unbearable to watch. I get that they aren't exactly on the same page in the beginning of the movie, so there will be some clashing, but this kept on going for far too long. Third, I'm not going to say who the villain is in case you managed to skip the trailers, but his motive was completely non-existent. He was just doing villainous things because he is the bad guy, that's it.

In the end, I can't really recommend this movie to watch in the cinema. Yes, it's bit better than Terminator 3 and Terminator Salvation, but that doesn't mean it's a worthy sequel. Suffice to say I will not be back to see it again.

Check out more on my movie review blog The Stub Collector: http://thestubcollector.wordpress.com/

Quickie Review:

Minions from the dawn of time have always searched to serve the most despicable masters in the world. After failing to keep their masters numerous times, the minions feel without purpose. That's when three brave minions, Kevin, Bob, and Stuart set out on a journey to find their new master. Despicable Me franchise has done a lot of things right, one of which that clicked with all ages were the adorable little minions. This film could've been very basic, continuously rehashing a collection slapstick comedy, and just simply depend on the popularity of the minions. Instead, the creators of this film added heart to the characters, delivering a movie that kids will love and adults will have fun with.

Full Review:

As much as I love the minions in the Despicable Me movies, I was quite pessimistic on how good Minions was going to be. It just felt like a cash grab. Of course, all movies aim to grab some cash but this movie in particular felt like the studio was just capitalising on the popularity of the characters. Gratefully, the movie got me to set aside my pessimism.

One of my biggest concerns was whether a collection of side characters can really carry an entire movie. Short answer as it turns out: yes they can. It works because we are focusing on just three minions for the majority of the movie. Each of them have their unique personality that shines through without a single word of comprehensible dialogue. That in itself is an amazing feat, the minion-gibberish is all non-sense and yet I am able to empathise with them. I can't even say the same for actual human actors in other movies sometimes! So in that sense, job well done animators. I also liked the small story arc that was given to the villain of the movie, Scarlett Overkill (Sandra Bullock). She wasn't a villain just for the sake of it, which added another dimension to what could have been a generic character. There is relatable back story to her that made us understand where she was coming from, while still retaining the unpredictable evil-ness.

The movie is not without flaws. There are times where the jokes might be too slapstick for adults to enjoy. These scenes are obviously aimed for the kids. They don't completely alienate us grown-ups but it is still noticeable. On top of that, I have to say I felt the absence of Gru and the kids from the Despicable Me movies. What I love about the minions is their relationship with Gru's family, the pranks, the shenanigans, the care they have for each other, is all so delightful to watch. This absence was bound to happen since we are concentrating on the minions. At the same time, aside from Scarlett Overkill there are no other memorable supporting characters.

Even with the problems, I really did enjoy my time watching Minions. It was a great light hearted, charming, fun movie. If you have little kids, nephews or nieces, don't hesitate to take them to the cinema. They will have an awesome time. Together you too will find some amusing entertainment.

Quickie Review:

After the death of her mother Quinn (Stefanie Scott) tries to contact her through a retired gifted psychic Elise (Lin Shaye). Unknowingly Quinn attracts the attention of an evil spirit that begins to threaten her life. Reluctantly Elise must use her gift to save the girl's and her family's life. Insidious 3 is a prequel to the first two films and fits perfectly into the mythology of the franchise. There is a new menacing threat that brings a lot of terrifying moments. Though the horror aspect is well-made, this movie is not wholly dependent on the scares and tells a compelling sentimental story. Insidious is a must for the fans, while also a great entry for those who haven't seen the previous films of the franchise.

Full Review:

I really enjoyed the first two movies. They were a great homage to the 80's style horror by the master of modern day horror, director James Wan. I was cautiously optimistic because Wan was not returning to helm the movie and first time director Leigh Whannell took on the task. Thankfully he seemed to have taken notes because he has achieved in making another solid entry to the franchise.

Insidious 3 does refer to the past films but for all intents and purposes, this is a standalone prequel. I love that about the movie, because it had the freedom to explore new ideas and expand on the mythology already set. There is a new evil demon haunting our main character and he frankly creeped me the hell out. A lot of credit has to be given to the cinematography of the movie because it limits what we get to see. This is added suspense to the scenes, making the slow horror more intense. Another praise I must give Insidious 3 and the franchise as a whole is that the movie never treats the characters as idiot screaming machines. I actually cared for the well-being of the characters because of their genuine reactions to what was happening around them. There are no fake scares here, when they are scared, you should be too. Also I liked that the movie developed Lin Shaye's character Elise. She was always a supporting character but here she is very much in the forefront, and enjoyed watching her transformation during the movie.

Where I see the movie could have improved is the significance of the new menace. In the previous films the evil spirits had clear intent, directed towards specific characters. Whereas in this film the haunting feels like a chance occurrence. That directed intent is what made the spirits so insidious. The choice to make a very generic goal for the demon did not fit with what we have come to learn from this mythology. So I would've like to have understand more of the motive for the haunting.

For the fans of the movies especially, I highly recommend this film. If you haven't seen the old films I still suggest you watch them before Insidious 3 because you will then catch the references that might make for a better experience. Nevertheless, this is an enjoyable movie for all horror fans. I hope they stop the movies so we have a solid trilogy of horror films to watch on Halloween!

Quickie Reiview:

After an accident, Adaline Bowman (Blake Lively) gains the gift of endless youth and eternal life. Unable to age Adaline was forced to live a solitary life for decades. Everything changes when she meets a charismatic man, Ellis Jones (Michiel Huisman), complicating the life she had accepted. The Age of Adaline overall is a decent film, with good acting that make the relationships and the inherent conflict feel real. However, the story mechanic of agelessness is at times mishandled and hence ends up feeling like a gimmick. Though this is not a perfect film, The Age of Adaline gives a respectable effort in delivering a believable love story without becoming cheesy.

Full Review:

Romance movies is usually not my thing. Not because I'm a heartless guy, but because most of the time the stories tend to be overly simplistic depiction of love *cough* Nicholas Sparks movies *cough*. Excuse me. Though The Age of Adaline did have the potential to be exactly that, I was curious as to how agelessness would be used in the context of a romantic film.

Blake Lively surprised me in this film. Sure, she may be one of the most gorgeous actresses in Hollywood (well done Ryan Reynolds), but I was never impressed by her acting chops. This movie has changed my opinion on Lively considerably. She played the character in a way that despite the 29 year old look there is an air of sophistication about her that has developed through years of wisdom. So the fact that she was able to make us believe that mentally she is a much older woman is definitely commendable. The chemistry she had with rest of the cast also added a lot of history to their relationships without always depending on flashbacks. Apart from the performances, the film looked great. The cinematography of the different ages brought a lot of character to the movie, transporting you through the different decades Adaline lived through.

The problem the movie has is that the agelessness story mechanic feels under-used. Of course there are multiple flashbacks and there are hints at why she chose the way she lives her life. Yet, I can think of multiple way similar relationship conflicts could've been explored without the need for that mechanic. That's why I wanted the movie to spend more screen time in the past, to really show the transitions that Adaline went through. The way the flashbacks work here is that they are always used when it is most convenient to explain her relationship with another character. Her past is never used to show her transform as a person over the years, so the agelessness becomes just means to add drama to a love story. Also I must mention, I absolutely hated the narration in the movie. It's not very often but every time the narrator spoke it pulled me out of the movie, because for some reason they felt the need to explain her condition scientifically. Uh… nobody cares how this miracle works in terms of fake science. Let the audience just accept it and move on with the story.

It's a pity that the one thing that made The Age of Adaline unique was not fully taken advantage off. Nevertheless, the solid performances from Blake Lively and the rest of the cast helped the movie to not completely disappear into the noise of generic romantic movies. While there are noticeable flaws, there are certainly also some redeemable qualities to this movie.

Quickie Review:

Agent turned studio-head Ari Gold (Jeremy Piven) is producing his first movie and he'd like Vincent Chase (Adrian Grenier) to star in it. Vince agrees on the condition that he gets to direct the movie. Together with his band of friends Vince must face both professional and personal hurdles. Entourage brings back the cast of the original show. While there are some funny additions to the cast the overall movie suffers from a meandering plot. The aimless story is only worsened by numerous shallow characters. For non-fans of the show, this is a pointless movie to watch. As for the fans, you might leave disappointed.

Full Review:

I have never seen a single episode of Entourage. Still, I must admit the trailer sold me on the movie and I was highly anticipating it. Unfortunately, I was left more confused as to what the point of the movie was. So you've been warned that this review comes from someone who has no idea what the show is like.

Though I didn't like the movie, I did enjoy some of the characters. Jeremy Piven as Ari Gold was hilarious. He has a no B.S. attitude most of the time and speaks his mind directly. Conversely it is also funny to see when he needs to shut his mouth to get what he needs. Billy Bob Thornton and Haley Joel Osment play father and son who are two key financiers for Ari's movie. They too have great comedic chemistry, and steal most of the scenes they are in. Haley Joel Osment has surprisingly good comedic timing. I haven't seen him in much but in this movie he plays the creepy rich guy who gets what he wants in an amusing way.

The biggest problem for me as a new-comer to this property is that the movie felt like it was two or three episodes from a random season of the show. There are all these references and backstory that I feel like I need to know. Of course I understand that this movie is catered more for the fans of the show, but if a movie wants a wider audience then it should retain a wider appeal. On top of that the premise of the movie makes it seem like there is some kind of conflict, but it is all resolved with a series of cameos from stars. Same goes for the individual story arcs. So there is no need to worry whether the main characters will succeed or not because some freak incident will occur and it will all work out in the end. So I didn't care for the characters one bit because the entire movie is as shallow and one note as the characters themselves.

If you are not fan of the show or never seen it, this is not a movie for you. At the same time if you are fan of the show I have a feeling you won't love this movie either. I say this because I went to watch this movie with a friend who watched the show and he also admits it felt like 2 or 3 bad episodes from the show. So overall I'd say skip it for the cinema, but if you'd really like to watch it, give it a shot on TV.

Check out more on my movie review blog The Stub Collector: http://thestubcollector.wordpress.com/

Quickie Review:

After the events of Jurassic Park, 22-years ago, Isla Nublar now hosts the original vision of a functioning dinosaur theme park, Jurassic World. To keep the public interest and raise the visitor rates, the corporation engineer a new breed of dinosaur, Indominus Rex (I-Rex). Meddling with genetic research once again puts the park and people in danger when the I-Rex breaks loose. Jurassic World while not living up to the Spielberg's classic, stands strong on its own merits. The new I-Rex is a great new addition to the roster of scary dinosaurs and the CGI is very well done. There are some sub- plots that don't fit well, but the overall story is a thrill ride with both horror and action. Jurassic World is a great summer- blockbuster monster fun.

Full Review:

While I was looking forward to Jurassic World, the trailers left me only cautiously optimistic. I had quite a few doubts about the movie: genetic splicing of different dinosaur species, trained raptors, over-reliance on CGI. It all seemed too different from Jurassic Park. After watching the movie all my apprehensions were thrown out the window because different is exactly what Jurassic World needed.

Let's start with the star/villain of the movie, I-Rex. The perfect word to describe her is terrifying. The sheer size of her in every aspect, jaw, feet, claws, if you saw her running towards you, to quote the movie "The kids? This will give their parents nightmares." Which is perfect! Because that's an essential part of what Jurassic Park was, a horror. It's not just the physicality of the dinosaur but the way she moves, thinks, and takes advantage of her spliced nature that added a lot to her being an insurmountable threat. A lot of the dinosaurs were CGI even for close-ups but it never pulled me out of the movie. The computer visual effects were very well polished, and I am saying that as a huge fan of practical effects where possible. In fact, the dinosaur designs were so well done I'd say they had more personality than most human characters in other movies.

Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard were also very good in the movie. As much I loved Pratt in Guardians of the Galaxy as Star- Lord, I didn't want him to play the same character again. Luckily he doesn't and still is a badass. He showed that with the way he interacted with the raptors and the way he'd improvise to get out of a difficult situation. I'd like to reassure you that the way the raptors are trained makes complete sense in the context of the movie. They are still dangerous animals, not completely tamed, so their scenes with Pratt hold a lot of tension. Pratt and the rest of the cast including the kids Ty Simpkins and Nick Robinson are not completely humourless. There are some good jokes here and there that keep the movie from becoming completely dreary.

There are few small issues I do have with the movie but the subplots in particular is what bothered me the most. This is the second time in two weeks there is a movie with a divorce subplot. But the way it is handled in Jurassic World is even worse because it never really affects the story or the characters significantly. There are also other story arcs that are not executed well and so feel out of place. I can't say much else without spoiling the movie but if these subplots were trimmed off, Jurassic World may have been a more well- rounded film.

I have to say I really enjoyed my time with Jurassic World. Like for many others Jurassic Park means a lot to me, it's the first Hollywood movie I remember from my childhood. Director Colin Trevorrow did an excellent job in honouring the classic while introducing us to something new. When you watch the movie, you can tell this was a movie made by a fan (a very talented one too) for the fans. By the end of the movie I was applauding it. So if you have your doubts like I did, go watch it, because I'm sure it'll surprise you.

Check out more on my movie review blog The Stub Collector: http://thestubcollector.wordpress.com/

Quickie Review:

One of the finest spies of CIA is killed in the line of duty. Susan Cooper (Melissa McCarthy) a CIA analyst must now abandon her desk job and go into the field. This unassuming spy's mission: to infiltrate an arms dealing ring to prevent a global disaster. Spy is a surprisingly good action comedy. The movie does not just rely on the only comedian in the movie and is more of an ensemble effort. Spy spoofs the spy genre without becoming a joke itself, but this also means that the originality in this movie is severely lacking. Nevertheless, Spy is an entertaining film with consistent stream of laughs. As a bonus, Jason Statham was incredible in his comedic role.

Full Review:

I really was not looking forward to Spy. Melissa McCarthy was hilarious in Bridesmaids, but every movie after that was McCarthy becoming more and more extreme version of that character. Tammy was the peak of annoying comedy, it was getting tiring. However, in Spy McCarthy holds back on the zany weirdness and it works.

When looking at the premise, it's easy to think "oh this movie is just going to be a collection of scenes where McCarthy's character fumbles into success." Quite the contrary, she is actually competent at her job. Yea sure for the physical action she is limited, but she holds her own even against intimidating foes. What I'm trying to say is that she is not like Austin Powers who depends on dumb luck to beat the bad guy. She is constantly underestimated, so when she exudes confidence that's when McCarthy is at her best because so many times she would retort with actions or insults that were such good burns that you can't help it but laugh. Rest of the cast were also comedically on point. Rose Byrne continues to show she fits well in comedies even after Bridesmaids and Neighbors. I want to see her more in these types of roles (I'm not just saying that because I have a celebrity crush on her). The undeniable show stealer was Jason Statham. His numerous, endless monologues about how great he is were hilarious! It's great to see him poke fun at his own image in action movies. It's completely unexpected (the trailer only gave a snippet) but every time Statham started one of his stories, everyone in the cinema started to laugh.

There are some tired out jokes in the movie though. Like I mentioned, McCarthy's character is constantly put down for her weight or appearance. So the jokes about her weight and lack of experience start to get a little old. Luckily like I mentioned she does quip back in a funny way each time, but lessening the fat jokes would've been better. Spy, is a spoof of all spy movies ever made. With that comes all the overused plot points and twists that won't surprise you at all. On spy parody scale of Austin Powers to Kingsman, Spy lies somewhere in between. So a lot of the parody is done with very safe jokes, in that sense Spy doesn't offer anything new or fresh. As a result the movie does come off very generic.

That being said, Spy is a comedy after all. So all it needed to do was to get us to laugh, and it did achieve its goal. You don't need to be concerned of McCarthy wackiness from Tammy. This was an ensemble effort where the movie depended on everyone in the cast to deliver the jokes. Spy is a surprisingly entertaining film that will hit you on the funny bone.

Quickie Review:

A series of small tremors on the San Andreas Fault lead to the biggest earthquake disaster in recorded history. Rescue-chopper pilot Ray (Dwayne Johnson) must venture into the middle of the aftermath to rescue his daughter (Alexandra Daddario) and ex-wife (Carla Gugino). San Andreas is visually a great cinematic disaster film. With that comes a lot of computer generated visual effects that are bit rough around the edges but deliver in setting the grand scale of the destruction. Yet the film falls into the same clichés of every disaster film ever that it becomes tiring. Burdened with overacting and forced drama San Andreas is mediocre at best.

Full Review:

The Rock fighting an earthquake? Yea sure, it's a ridiculous premise but we a have a charming actor as our hero and a plausible disaster, what could go wrong? Oh… it's a carbon copy of all other movies of the same genre.

Of course a movie like this can't be done without CGI. There are few moments where you can clearly tell the actors are in front of a green screen. However, when the city wide destruction is shown the scale of it all is very well displayed. More than once my eyes widened at some surprising incident as a consequence of the earthquake. I'm not a geologist so I don't know the specifics of it all but the overall sequence of events and damage felt realistic. I enjoy Dwayne Johnson in films because he brings a lot of his charisma to whatever character he plays. He was necessary for this movie. Without his one-liners that lightened the mood, the movie would be drowning in overacting drama.

Question to Hollywood: why do we always need a divorced couple and d-bag stepfather in a disaster movie? Seriously, that can't possibly be the only way you can get the audience to relate to the main characters. Ioan Gruffund, who plays the stepfather is just in the movie to be a d-bag, who does one d-bag thing, to give Carla Gugino a d-bag boyfriend to instantly hate and fall back in love with Dwayne Johnson. This is not a spoiler, you know that's where this movie is heading in the first 10mins. To top it off the movie tries to be dramatic but it just ends up feeling like overacting. I blame the script and directing because the cast of this movie do have decent acting career that's better than what they brought here.

All in all, purely considering the genre San Andreas delivers on the big devastation sequences. Great acting is a not a requirement for a movie like this but it definitely would have brought the movie to a more entertaining level. With some managed expectations you might leave the cinema liking the movie but not loving it.

Check out more on my movie review blog The Stub Collector: http://thestubcollector.wordpress.com/