Reviews

My favourite Connery Bond film is probably the greatest film in the entire franchise along with Craig's Casino Royale and Brosnan's GoldenEye.

This one has it all. The top-notch cold war plot set in beautiful Istanbul, where the Russians and the British are being played by SPECTRE. It has multiple memorable action set-pieces such as the Gypsy raid, Train fight, Helicopter attack and so on. Red Grant is the perfect henchman and Rosa Klebb is an iconic Bond villain.

Connery is better than he was in Dr No and begins to have fun with the character whilst straying from the silly comedy that would encompass his performance in Diamonds are Forever.

A stellar film in its own right, let alone a superb 007 outing.

Belfast is a muddled movie. Jude Hill (who plays a kid Ken Branagh of-sorts) is growing up during the Troubles in the Northern Irish capital with his close-knit family, going through all the strifes of any first-world child that include finding a first love, saying goodbye to grandparents, and finding a lifelong passion for something (in this case, movies). What I wanted from the film, however, was less Cinema Paradiso meets British Sitcom, and more intimate drama that takes the events of the Troubles a little more seriously.

Showing the events of a film such as Belfast through the eyes of a child isn't an inherently poor decision, after all, Kenneth Branagh has spoken much about how the film mirrors much of what he experienced back in the 1960s, but the storytelling technique does come with a rather large problem for us audiences. The problem being: the film glosses over large, dramatic events that would be pivotal to any other story but are downplayed so much here, that Buddy (our protagonist) might as well be growing up in any country- for the events the city is going through make no difference.

Yes, we do get a very Hollywoodized face-off between Buddy's hard-grafting father (Jamie Dornan) and what seems to be a local troublemaker by the name of Billy Clanton, but when the action strikes, I couldn't help but roll my eyes. Pick your side, movie. Either go with the heartfelt comedic spin (which largely seemed to be proving popular with almost everybody except me) or the dark, cold truth of what it was really like growing up in the Troubles.

The intimacy of the film was completely lost on me. I have a hard time connecting with any Kenneth Branagh film but this time it was most frustrating as it was so obvious he wanted me to care about this family and their conflict over whether to leave Belfast for a life in Australia or England. But just as I begin to feel interested in their dilemma, we crack a few jokes and another Van Morrison montage sequence kicks-in. The film tries to do it all, therefore compromising the best moments by cutting away far too early so the feeling is lost.

Yet, Belfast has turned out to be a crowd-pleasing hit. It will grab some impressive awards for the Supporting Cast and no doubt inspire other established filmmakers to venture into their own pasts and conjure up more average monochrome pastiches- wishing that they were as good as other movies before them. For a movie with so much potential, this one really stung, when it should've been far far better.

I've been a little turned off by the MCU ever since the likes of Ant Man & The Wasp, and sadly despite stellar reception from audiences and critics alike, No Way Home fails to recapture my interest.

Sure- it's nice to have callbacks to spidey films of old (better ones, nevertheless) but when your plot revolves entirely around catering for nostalgia, I'm going to be disappointed. Does it live up to the hype? Absolutely not. Some scenes were well handled and the comedy worked more often than not, but No Way Home feels more like an episode of an average disney + TV series than anything else

I'm glad people are enjoying it, but I expected more considering the mountain of hype.

So much has changed in the world since the release of Daniel Craig's previous 007 film, Spectre, that nearly all Bond fans had zero idea about what No Time to Die was going to bring us. Heavy-handed social commentary? The introduction of way too many characters simply put there for diversity purposes? The trailers offered us little insight except into how Hans Zimmer had really nailed the score- something to add to the already enormous hype generated by the multiple delays due to COVID.

After leaving the theatre from seeing No Time to Die on Friday, I can safely say that Bond has never been this emotionally charged, in all the good ways. From the cold-blooded killer we saw in 2006's Casino Royale, 15 years on, we are given the perfect conclusion to Craig's arc, Bond has moved on from his ruthless past and has become an even more root-able force on our movie screens.

Credit to Cary Fukunaga. After the departure of Danny Boyle from Bond 25, a series of unfortunate production issues would lead No Time To Die down a road only comparable to the likes of Apocalypse Now- a truly haunted production was in store. But, to my surprise, director Cary Fukunaga has done something with Bond I doubt any other director could've done so effortlessly, and that is make James Bond seem truly like a real human being. In these pandemic-ridden times, the one thing us movies fans needed was a classic film to drag us back into film escapism we require to help us get through these dark times.

James's mission takes him across the globe, as the plot of a 007 film should; from the luxurious beaches of Jamaica to the bustling streets of Cuba and beyond. Accompanied by what might be the finest James Bond cast ever assembled- including, but not limited to- Ana De Armas, Lashana Lynch, Billy Magnussen, Rami Malek, Ralph Fiennes, Jeffrey Wright and Lea Seydoux.

And to many older fans' delight, this is the closest we've gotten to a Roger Moore film since Roger Moore. The outlandish henchmen and one-liners took me back to when I used to watch The Spy Who Loved Me and Live and Let Die on repeat. But Craig never forgets his roots that he's planted so deeply in the character- maintaining that Dalton-esque brutality and the Connery-like suave appearance.

The ending will trouble some, but I bought it. This franchise has finally struck the perfect balance it has been unknowingly searching for since Brosnan departed the role. What a send off.

James Gunn might just be the most reliable comic-book movie director working today. He just gets the sub-genre so well. His own spin that he puts on these movies- that mostly feature less-known comic-book characters- is so comedic and filled-to-the-brim with mad action, that you can't help but connect deeply with these characters that unless you were a die-hard comic reader, you'd have never met or perhaps even heard of, before. Credit to Mr. James Gunn, and credit to Warner Bros for realising that a Suicide Squad movie needs to be unhinged, and props to them for finally understanding that in order to get that, you need to give the director full control- sorry David Ayer!

Idris Elba's ruthless mercenary 'Bloodsport' leads this band of mad bad-guys, with Joel Kinnaman's returning 'Rick Flag' and the fan favourite 'Harley Quinn' (played brilliantly by Margot Robbie) act as his second-in-commands. However, the two characters that shine best for me were John Cena's 'Peacemaker'- a violence-obsessed hitman always looking to one-up Elba, and David Dastmalchian's 'Polka Dot Man', who is a quirky, quiet supervillain who longs to be a superhero but is tragically plagued by his traumatic past (involving none other than his own mother).

Despite the cliche plot and underdeveloped villains, The Suicide Squad builds to an awesome third act that is actually the best that the DCEU has produced yet! What stops it from toppling 'Man of Steel' as the best DC extended universe movie is the slightly less impressive score and, obviously, a villain that is nowhere near as memorable as Michael Shannon's excellent turn as Zod.

Still, a damn fine movie. An excellent one- by comic-book movie standards.

Since Richard Donner's classic Christopher Reeve starring 'Superman' in 1978, Warner Bros have struggled to bring the last son of Krypton onto the big screen to the same effect. He last bowed out in 2006- when Bryan Singer attempted to revive the hero with the help of Brandon Routh- generating extreme divide between audiences and critics, some liking the old-fashioned feel, others wishing for a darker tone. Finally, Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan have delivered a film worthy of high praise, Superman is back, on the big screen, done away with the campy garbage we should have left behind with 'Superman IV' in the year 1987.

Have you ever seen a superhero movie as visually enchanting as 'Man of Steel'? Snyder has brought his striking cinematography to the table, four years after showing the world his visual talents with Watchmen- a movie which feels similar to 'Man of Steel' in terms of some of the questions the two movies bring up. I bet if you were to mute the film and leave it on in the background, you would still find the imagery on display here to be, at the very least, engaging and attractive. Superman- and his surroundings- have never looked as good before.

Structurally, 'Man of Steel' works to perfection. The first hour is pure, unfiltered build-up and character development. Considering the amount of balls that Snyder has to juggle in terms of character pieces, every notable cast member as a story arc that is beyond strong enough. Even Russell Crowe, Diane Lane and Kevin Costner's characters feel real, despite their lack of screen presence. The pacing of the movie is also excellent. Enough action to satisfy our needs, but not too much that we long for the movie to cut back to the quieter moments.

I love the way the film brings up Superman's humanity. Where does he lie, with his Kryptonian past, or his faux human background? Ultimately, he choses to become human- to subside his birth race and fulfil his father's wishes in giving "the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards"- making the film much more complex than being your standard superhero fare.

Why the hate? Because Superman isn't perfect? Because he makes mistakes and sometimes choses to show his human side? I don't get it. This movie is Superman at his finest. Pure excellence- Snyder's greatest achievement.

Only 1991's 'Point Break' can rival 'Speed' for the Greatest Summer Action movie title. Both are not just enthralling, well-directed and smart flicks, but they are also two Keanu Reeves films. Reeves has shown time and time again that his acting chops are limited, but take one look at his film CV, and you'd be easily convinced he was one of the all-time bests: The Matrix, John Wick and My Own Private Idaho all stand out as highlights among the occasional dud (47 Ronin or The Day The Earth Stood Still).

Reeves is Jack Travern, a man so obviously inspired by Willis' John McClane from the Die Hard films (of which there had been two installments by the time Speed was being filmed), but quite simply, Travern still feels fresh and engaging despite the many similarities between both action leads. Sandra Bullock is the helpless damsell-in-distress stuck on a bus rigged with explosives by madman Dennis Hopper. This unhinged terrorist plays games with Travern throughout the movie as his efforts to save the cast of characters on-board become increasingly more difficult and strained.

What works about 'Speed', and thus making it stand out from the crowd some twenty-seven years later, is all in the thrilling plot which is brought to life so brilliantly by director Jan De Bont and composer Mark Mancina. To this day, I hear the theme for 'Speed' and I'm ready to dig my nails into the palms of my hands and lean forward onto the edge of my seat. Few movies- actioners or not- have been able to generate such excitement from score and direction alone.

But let's not forget the pace at which the film sticks at. Whereas a lot of action films simply dry up towards the end of the second act, just when the hero realises something they need to do or some place they need to get to, 'Speed' simply elevates things. We go from a bus to a train. The unconventional structure is something that works much to the film's strength.

Jan De Bont, take a bow.

I wish people would stop declaring Thomas Vinterberg's latest movie as a promotion of alcohol. Dig deeper people, this fantastic film is much more of a warning to casual drinkers about just how slippery the slippery slope into acoholism really is. And just like how our four primary protagonists joke at the thought of themselves being alcoholics, we too can be caught up in the cloud of denial that these characters ultimately become shrouded in.

Whilst at his own birthday celebration, Magnus Millang's psychology teacher, Nikolaj, casually slips into conversation with his three teaching collegues about a study done which proposed that humans naturally have lower-than-desired alcohol blood levels. The group seem uninterested, sip their wine and swiftly move onto a new topic. Mads Mikkelsen's character however, History teacher Martin, opens up to the group about his internal struggles- which he identifies are linked to his lack of motivation to teach when compared to his younger days.

Soon enough, the group find themselves undertaking a research project which involves drinking the equivalent of 1-2 glasses of wine before a school day and subsequently recording the effects, which begin positive. We see where this is going, yet, I remained glued to the big screen as I was fascinated about the excuses that the teachers would conjure in order to raise the amount of alcohol they would consume.

I'm convinced that this film will speak to many drinkers, casual or heavy, reminding them how fragile they are. They walk the line of alcoholism everytime they drink. And after the struggle of a year that many have faced, that line may be finer for some more than others. Screen this movie everywhere you can- it contains a needed message whilst being delightfully wrapped up in a sweet, feel-good container which is fulled to the brim with dark humor.

No, it doesn't compare to Mads' 2013 project with the same director, The Hunt, but it does offer a two-in-one. What a beautifully made blast-of-a-movie that carries a hidden lesson we could all learn.

Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, Johnny Depp, even his co-star in 'The Talented Mr. Ripley', Jude Law, all have seem to have suffered from the same audience-inflicted disease as Matt Damon. The diagnosis? They gather acclaim more on their "good looks" than their actual on-screen performances. This can lead to some (like Brad Pitt) becoming criminally undervalued actors especially when it comes to awards seasons. The group- that includes Damon- are overlooked and disregarded time after time, and I feel he was simply ignored for his turn as Tom Ripley.

We begin the film knowing that Ripley is a smart man. He constantly decieves every person he comes across, applying his fake demeanor and faux grin, a feat which is first seen as he approaches the young Dickie Greenleaf and Dickie's girlfriend, Marge whilst on a beach in sunny Italy. Ripley reminds Dickie how they were both students at Princeton University in New Jersey, and although his memory isn't jogged, Greenleaf allows Ripley to tag along with him as he enjoys himself in Southern Europe.

My memory, however, was certainly jogged around 40 minutes into this movie as I realised the range and capability of the lead man here. In just two years, Matt Damon had gone from his relatable Will Hunting to the absolute opposite in Tom Ripley. Feats like this are rare even for some of the best actors. Even the greats like Nicholson, Duvall or Hackman would struggle to navigate their way between the character spectrum- they either stick with the 'madman' character, or the 'down-to-earth' good-guy. To have not even been recognised with an Oscar nomination for his work here, Matt Damon should feel absolutely robbed.

Throughout the 2hr19m runtime, I found myself so unbelievable fascinated by the portrayal of Ripley and the character himself, Minghella's movie almost took a backseat, thus making the film a victim of its own success. Had the other characters not felt like they were simply there to put an obsticle in Mr. Ripley's way then maybe they'd have posed a more interesting dynamic on-screen, and certainly would have kept the film rolling.

This is superb insight into the mind of a narcissist. If only the rest of the picture could keep up with Damon's intense, captivating and career-best performance. Worthy of a watch.

This is my third Joe Wright movie after his 2005 take on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and his Oscar-winning war drama Darkest Hour and I have to say, his movies aren't my cup of tea. Both of those movies I found to be highly overrated - Darkest Hour especially - and whilst I can see the appeal for some, I have to cast some doubt over his directorial ability. Overall, I would say that The Woman in the Window is about the same quality as Darkest Hour, but not quite as good as Pride and Prejudice which is probably his best film - according to his fans.

Amy Adams does very well here to lift a role out of the mud that was created by the script and Wright's shoddy direction. Without her, the movie falls to a 4 star rating, perhaps even lower. Other than her performance, what kept me entertained here were the Hitchcock references (that a big Hitchcock fan myself, understood) and the twists that somehow, mostly, didn't play into my expectations.

Gary Oldman does his usual thing that he does in plenty of his films where he shouts and overacts, usually when he plays the villain or a main character. Yep, he does it here, but it isn't Jared Leto-style annoying, it's just a bit cringe-worthy at times. He plays the father in the family that Amy Adams' character spies on during the film, unfortunately, his character wasn't explored as much as I would've liked.

The flashback sequences were great and added something different to the story- something that the 1954 classic Rear Window didn't have. Also, the finale was tense enough to keep me watching.

I would only recommend watching this movie if you have a free 2 hours and you want some disposable entertainment, but something good enough to keep you watching and engaged. Like I say, Amy Adams is always worth watching, even if she's being directed by Joe Wright (who I am not a fan of).

If you wanted an example of perfect filmmaking to come from a new director in the 1990s, many would instantly choose Pulp Fiction. It's the most logical option, and certainly higher regarded when compared to Anderson's second feature, Boogie Nights. But what Boogie Nights has that Pulp Fiction doesn't is the deep character details and backstories. In Pulp we jump from character to character with little rhyme or reason whereas in Boogie, we start with Eddie Adams and end up with his new persona, Dirk Diggler. I've always felt a stronger connection with Boogie Nights and when it comes to a rewatch, it's more enjoyable overall.

The dynamite 70s soundtrack is a prime example of how the movie creates such a great atmosphere of the era. Of course, set design is a major factor but as a lover of music from that era, it was great to see so many awesome songs crop up. Burt Reynolds' character is my favourite in the movie; it's a real shame he didn't want to ever watch the movie post-release. In my opinion, it's his best role- he got a Golden Globe win and an Oscar nom for his turn as Jack Horner, the calm and cool Movie Director that Dirk finds himself working with.

Talk about an ensemble cast! Wahlberg, John C. Reily, Julianne Moore, Don Cheadle, Heather Graham, Luiz Gusman, William H. Macy, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Alfred Molina. Genius casting across the board, no matter how small or insignificant the role. They each get certain scenes or moments to shine. I have to admit, my favourites were Guzman, Hoffman and Molina. All three give stunning performances that are highly underrated roles, Molina for example, only appears for one scene, but the scene is magnificent and he is magnificent in it.

The rise and fall style story structure seen in other legendary movies such as Barry Lyndon or GoodFellas is also seen here, but adapted to fit a different style of filmmaking. Anderson is more similar to Tarantino than he is to Scorsese or Kubrick in the way he directs his films- a very eccentric and humourous style.

And this applies to fans of all three directors above- watch Boogie Nights. It is an immense film that does absolutely everything and more.

Apart from the 1st 25 minutes, this film was an utter borefest. Daniel Craig is the only thing that keeps this a somewhat ok bond movie. Both the villain and the plot are seriously underdeveloped and are very strange for a bond film after such a fantastic 1st appearance for Craig in 'Casino Royale'. Without a doubt the weakest of Daniel Craig's bond movies.