Reviews

The acting in this series is one of the best things, as is the production value. Where it has a slow leak is the story. The whole parallel universe cross over thing has been done before (the French series Infiniti from 2022 explored these ideas and for me was a far more entertaining series, so if you don't mind subtitles go check that out).

I kept hoping that the story would twist around some more with perhaps more and more cross overs between multiple universes, that would drive the main character completely insane because her ability to predict what would happen in her world is taken away bit by bit with each cross over.

Overall I enjoyed the film as a piece of escapist entertainment. Jake is always interesting to see in a movie and I like his Dalton character. The other characters weren't that fleshed out, and the Connor character was plain silly and over the top, but I just went with it. After all, the film needed someone able to equal the Dalton character in fighting skills. Don't focus on the story or plot too much as it is pretty simple. The biggest plus for me were the way the fight sequences were shot and edited - very energetic and in your face, and far more entertaining than the original Patrick Swayze version (I did watch that version a few days after this one, and it kinda, almost stand up decades later, but is very dated in many ways). I also liked the bookshop girl and her western analogy that she presents to Jake, not subtle at all, but nothing in this film is subtle. The zen of bouncing ("Be nice") from the first film version is not here, but replaced with a caring side to the Dalton character where he takes those he hurts to the hospital.

A straight to Amazon Prime rental which is frequently successful as a horror film, and then sometimes not.

For a small independent horror film with a micro-budget (I guess that means self funded) it looks very good, this is one of the areas it succeeds very well. The camera and composition work is impressive at times, such as the opening desert sequence.

The acting is a bit hit and miss though, and some characters are dubbed, which was most noticeable in the desert sequence. The cop was good. The archeologist was good, mostly. The lead actress who is the friend of the archeologist is good on her own, but most scenes with others are more miss than hit. Especially the two friends talking in the living room.

The music was pretty good in that it added to the tension, but the pacing is very slow in this film. It is meant to be a "slow burn" but it takes too long at times. Film was almost 100 minutes long, could've benefited for about 10 to 15 minutes taken out.

The gore aspect was good, just should've had more of it.

This is a film that doesn't just lean into the "ghost" story tropes, but wallows in them, from starting with just a black screen and the now cliché sound FXs of screens, chains, evil laughter to having a vat of acid, skeletons that walk, secret doors, monster arms reaching for damsels in distress, thunder and lightning, high contrast shadowy lighting, severed heads etc, etc. But the best part of this film is Vincent Price, a great character actor who became firmly associated with the horror genre in the latter part of his career thanks to the films of Roger Corman et al. This film is worth seeing because of him.

There is some nifty camera work, following in front of people as they walk down the corridors without any dolly tracks visible, pre-steadycam, which I was surprised to see in a 1959 film.

It's taken my a long time to see this film, and it's been 40 years since I sat in a theatre and was scared so deliciously by the John Carpenter "remake".

This film is a product of it's time, and was then probably very scary and effective. My dad saw this film as a young teenager and remembered walking back home at night scared at every shadow.

There is a huge ensemble cast although only a few important protagonists, but all their reactions to finding the crashed strange "plane", and then the alien, are too blasé. Story points are just not believable, such as using thermo charges to try and free the spaceship, only to have it blow up, then digging up the alien encased in ice (off screen), putting the blanket over the ice encased alien and not hearing the water dripping as it melts. The actions of the characters are just plain stupid at times.

The creature is supposed to be smarter and more advanced than humans, a superplant that has evolved to be bipedal, with arms, digests blood, but still has large claw like fingers. Yet it just wanders around like the Frankenstein monster.

Lots of convenient dialogue to explain the creatures actions without any supporting evidence.

The 1982 film is still the best, watch it on 4K if you can, it still holds up as a brilliant, tense horror film today. Don't bother with the "prequel" from 2011, it is just a rehash of Carpenter's masterpiece with CGI that doesn't match the practical effects of Rob Bottin.

This is a truly great and entertaining film, with an engaging story, characters who feel real, and dynamic visuals. The blend of 2D rendering with the 3D makes it stand out from Pixar/Disney animation, giving the film its own look. The script is a well written one, with such great play on traditional fairytale and nursery rhymes in the way that the original Shrek film did that was so much fun. The big bad wolf is a brilliant villain and so scary, no wonder this film is PG. The design, editing, music, camera, acting, direction are all top notch. And finally it is a film within which the characters learn lessons about life, value of friends and family, and thus serves as a great inspiration for the audience.

This is a film I've passed over numerous times, as there didn't seem to be anything appealing in watching one guy talk to a dead guy for an entire film, but then I watched Everything Everywhere All At Once, and wondered what other films have the Daniels made, because EEAAO was the best film last year. So boy never judge a film by it's byline, is what Swiss Army Man reminded me, in a great way.

A slow but whimsical start that made me smile, and just when I thought it was getting boring the film becomes this compelling blend of comedic absurdity mixed with contemporary commentary, human emotion, and just great storytelling.

This is a film that leaves you thinking about it days after, and well done to both Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe, for such good performances.

Wasn't sure what to except from this film after "West Side Story", but was very pleasantly surprised with this film. Right from the start with the one screen introduction by Steven Spielberg himself, and him thanking the audience for viewing the film in a cinema (although he assumed that it was night time but hey just a small detail).

The cast were great' even Seth Rogen was tolerable as he played himself yet again, but just reigned in was interesting to watch, although both Michelle Williams and Paul Dano were the most compelling to watch as the family drama unfolded.

The themes of art, family, genius and following your dreams were expertly woven together.

The main character's introduction to film was great, just loved the shot of the huge audience filled cinema, to which the irony of what the cinema experience is these days was brought into stark contrast as I sat in a tiny theatre which was barely bigger than most home cinemas.

Super-8 days were the best, and it was fun watching the teenage Sam as he learned to take his first film making steps, although how he managed to cover the beach party run with just one 16mm camera and do Slow-Mo shots, well, artistic license I guess.

The end was perfect with just that light whimsical touch I love from a director whose films I've appreciated for nearly fifty years.

On my, what happened to Matthew Riley? I enjoyed his books years ago and was so looking forward to someone making a movie from one of them.

The script is just plain bad, the acting is woeful (really bad American accents, oh Colin Friels, why, oh, why are you in this movie), the music is just barely above library quality, the editing is sloppy, the camera work is a TV movie standard (static static static), the CGI looks like it was outsourced to amateurs from a third world country. Compare this film's stunts and action to other independent films from around world, be it France, India or Korea and it just pales into insignificance.

What was Chris Hemsworth doing in that cameo as a TV salesman?

Matthew should watch some of Michael Bay's early films, like "The Rock" - move the camera, have multiple things happening at the same time converging to a climatic finish.

This film tries very hard to create the correct "modern" eighteenth century world filled with equality and sea faring adventures for all, and it just feels like it tries too hard and steps over the line of disbelief too many times.

The look of the film's world is at times very realistic to the whaling days of yore, yet the ships crew is a combination of men and women which jars with any who have seen films such as "Master and Commander", "In the Heart of the Sea" or "Moby Dick" in many of its iterations. But, hey, this is a new world for all kids who like animation, not our old one for boys from the previous century, so put aside your history and just go with it. Which I tried to do, but when the little orphan girl starts to dominate and lead the story, achieving things or understanding things without any justifiable reason, such as the red beast's true motivation and befriending it for no reason given on the red beasts part, my suspension of disbelief burst and I sank to the bottom of ocean in boredom.

There is action and danger, great sea battles, great design (although the red beast felt too simplistic compared to other elements in the film) and a rousing music score, just not enough humour, and too much convenience with the little too cute blue monster pet/friend of the little girl. The end confrontation scene was just too unrealistic for a world based on a monarchical society.

Orphans of The Storm is a silent film classic from 1921 that stars sisters Lillian and Dorothy Gish as two French peasant girls during the time of the French Revolution. It is an amusing take on the traditional French Revolutionary story and features a comical cast of characters along with a strong female lead in Lillian Gish.

The movie follows the sisters as they are separated after their parents are arrested during the revolution while they are looking for their brother. One sister, Henriette (Lillian Gish), searches far and wide while the other, Louise (Dorothy Gish), is taken in by a Baroness. Despite their differing backgrounds, the sisters remain loyal to each other and their bond is strengthened by their shared adversity.

This is a subtle and captivating story that speaks to the power of love and loyalty, as well as the resilience of the human spirit. It is filled with beautiful visuals and touches of humour amidst its dramatic scenes, adding richness to the movie. The Gish sisters both deliver strong performances, and their chemistry makes the movie's emotional moments even more powerful.

Watch this "must see before you die film" for both historical and entertainment value.

Way Down East, another silent drama film directed by D. W. Griffith which tells the story of Anna Moore (Lillian Gish), a young woman who is tricked into a fake marriage, rendered destitute, and left alone by the man she thought she trusted. Surviving harsh conditions, she eventually finds true love with the affluent Lennox Sanderson (Lowell Sherman).

The movie is well-crafted and well acted for it's time, although from today's perspective it feels a little forced and unreal at times. It features one of the most iconic uses of cross-cutting in silent film, where it alternates between Anna being cruelly abandoned and then discovering her newfound love. It also features a pretty impressive recreation of a blizzard, and an exciting climax atop a large piece of ice.

The film also succeeds in conveying a powerful message about the prevalence of social class in early twentieth-century America. Throughout the movie, Anna is oppressed and isolated by her lower-class status. At the same time, Sanderson's wealth offers protection, allowing him to pay off the debts owed by Anna's mother and set her free from a dismal fate.

Overall, Way Down East is an excellent example of early Hollywood filmmaking that still resonates today. It has quality performances and a moving story, and one that illustrates the importance of social standing and the power of love.

Broken Blossoms is a 1919 silent drama film directed by D. W. Griffith. The film stars Lillian Gish and Richard Barthelmess, and tells the tragic story of an abused and misunderstood young Chinese girl named Lucy Burrows (Gish), who is saved from her tormentors by the love of an idealistic young man from the slums of London (Barthelmess).

The film is beautifully shot, with stunningly realistic sets and passionate performances from Gish and Barthelmess. The costumes and sets are impressive, and Griffith's direction is superb.

Overall, Broken Blossoms is a powerful and moving drama that captures the tragedy of abuse and violence, as well as the power of hope and love. It is a beautifully crafted film that still stands up today, and is a must-see for any fan of cinema and its history.

Within Our Gates is a 1920 pioneering work of African-American cinema and an early example of melodrama, the film was apparently made as a response to the popular Birth of a Nation and follows the story of a woman who is trying to help her family and community by raising money for a school for the African-American children. One of the earliest and surviving examples of a race film.

Overall, the film was highly praised by audiences and critics upon its release, and is noted for its advanced features and groundbreaking content. The film was met with harsh censorship, however, and was censored on multiple occasions. Despite this, it remains an important and powerful entry in the history of cinema.

Watch and enjoy for the historical value,

Les Vampires was an incredibly successful French film series that tells the story of a criminal organization known as the Vampires. This 10- part film series was produced between 1915-1916 and is often considered one of the first modern crime series. The series follows the adventures of the gang of criminals known as Vampires and their enemies, including newspaper reporter Philippe Guerande, as gang's enemies attempt to expose their nefarious activities.

The series was widely praised for its innovation and technical achievements, showcasing camera tricks and stunts that were rarely seen in 1915. While some of the technical achievements may be dated to modern audiences, the series still holds up some of the time and has been cited as an influence on later works such as Mission Impossible and Ocean's Eleven. Be prepared for long slower sections though.

Ultimately, Les Vampires is an interesting piece of film history and its influence on later works cannot be understated. It's a must-watch for anyone who is interested in the history of cinema or classic thrillers, but not for entertainment, or those who don't have 8 hours available.

It is considered a must see film on the 1001 movies to see before you die.

Intolerance (1916) is a classic of silent cinema directed by D. W. Griffith, whose work helped define the grammar of early film. The movie is a sweeping, panoramic look at humanity: it is part epic, part morality tale, and part cautionary fable about the power of prejudice and its consequences.

The story of Intolerance is told through four distinct stories, each taking place in a different time period and from a different perspective. Each part of the story is brought together by a recurring theme, making the movie a powerful statement about the dangers of intolerance.

The movie is visually captivating and the direction is masterful. Griffith employed cutting edge visual effects of the time, including cross-cutting, swish pans, and a famous rolling-camera shot across Babylon's palace. The camera work and editing often emphasize movement and emotion, helping to bring its message home.

The casting and performances in Intolerance are hit-and-miss; some of the performances are a bit theatrical or exaggerated, but Douglas Fairbanks, Constance Talmadge, and the director's discovery Lillian Gish all shine. The inter-titles are used sparingly and wisely - mostly only to punctuate the message of the film.

Overall, Intolerance is a pioneering work whose impact can be felt in the films of today. It is still worth watching and is well worth studying as a classic example of silent film-making.

This silent film is over 3 hours long, and was a "first" in many aspects. These days it is both revered and reviled at the same time as the story depicts the Ku Klux Klan in a positive manner.

This is a hard film to watch, but from an historical point of view it offers much to appreciate. This film is credited with introducing the dramatic close-up shot, tracking and moving shots, cross cutting parallel scenes and the first orchestral score. It also features "black face" performances by white actors as slaves.

The first half of the film is set before the civil war, and the second half after the war, during the Reconstruction period and shows the rise of the Ku Klux Klan as the one group that can save the nation.

It was met with controversy on its release, sparking riots while at the same time generating large sums of money at the cinema.

This film is worth a look, mainly for historical reasons. It gave us one of the most iconic images of cinema - the rocket ship (shaped like a giant bullet) stuck in the middle of the face of the moon.

A short film by today's standards, at 14 minutes, it would have been truely innovative back in 1902 when it was released and not just because of its length. It was a dramatised piece of fiction as opposed to the more shorter factual pieces of the Lumière brothers just a few years before it.

There are also innovations with special effects and hard colourisation, there is a copy of this digitally restored colour version available on MUBI, but I'd suggest watching it mute as the soundtrack with this version is too prominent for my taste.

Shot like a stage play, with no close-ups it is a somewhat funny piece with over the top acting, and no intertitre cards.

Firstly, I thought the production design, the costumes and the cinematography were really great.

Christian Bale was good, but it did feel like I was watching an Al Pacino impersonation at times. Margot Robbie felt too gorgeous, first as a nurse in World War One, and then fifteen years later she doesn't appear to have aged at all, her acting never broke through the facade of her beauty. John David Washington felt one dimensional and so withdrawn that he has impossible to relate to.

The story was interesting enough, and the concept of investigating one death, leading to witnessing another and then being framed for it, only to unearth and even more insidious evil is a good one, but the pace of reveals took too long, and the gravitas not correctly positioned for me.

Such a huge support cast, who were fun to watch, but they all felt one dimensional, with the exception of Remi Malek.

Watched this to see if it was truely terrible, but it wasn't too bad, just could've been so much better with a lot better editing.

I like a good horror film, and vampire films are a great sub-genre. I remember hearing about this film and finally got around to watching it, but was bored through most of it. This was unexpected considering the cast included Lance Hendrickson, a favourite character actor of mine, and Bill Paxton, who was completely over the top and boring. It also had another character actor, more commonly foun in B movies, Tim Thomerson , who I also like to see.

While the story uses some of the tropes from the vampire genre it glosses over most, with throw away lines. The vampires in this film are animalistic scavenger ps existing on the fringe of society and remaining hidden by burning up their previous vehicles and then stealing the next ones, something that would seem to attract exactly the attention the vampires are trying to avoid.

In this film a cure is somewhat conveniently discovered so the two young protagonists can live happily ever after. I didn't buy it.

Kathryn Bigelow's first film, thankfully she made better ones as her career developed.

Not having seen any of the TV seasons I found myself bored watching this film. Occasionally the dialogue made me smile as it counterpoints various strange and silly aspects of modern society and / or popular culture, but I nearly fell asleep during the movie at least 3 times.

I didn't care about any of the characters or their problems, and the subdued physicality of the animation was flat.

The visual aesthetic reminded me of the Simpsons, but didn't achieve a level of uniqueness that would have made the film stand out.

There was nothing memorable about the music other than the annoying singing, which wasn't fun for me.

Considering this movie made the vast majority of its money in the USA, and only about 6% of the total box office came from the rest of the world then it at least gave its fans what they wanted from it.

This film has been on my list to watch for a while now, and it is certainly a nice way to kill 2 hours of your life.

Solid acting all round, including the the two leads who were first timers, thanks to Paul Thomas Anderson's direction. Support / Cameron characters are also entertaining, most noticeably Bradley Cooper.

A simple story about how an unlikely relationship develops between a 15 year old boy and a 25 year old woman, but in the telling of this story are many delightful turns that keep the viewer engaged as both the boy and young woman grow up and discover how much they care and need each other.

This film has some fun and entertaining performances, most notably Joaquin Phoenix and John Brolin, but also the other smaller support roles have been played by some very recognisable actors, of which Benicio del Toro was a particular stand out.

What stopped the film from being enjoyable was the complicated plot, about which I quickly became disinterested in. Three investigations that have overlapping characters involved in each seems like a great idea for a noir film, or neo-noir as it seems to be referred to, but for some reason I didn't care about what was happening or any of the characters. Always watching at a distance, never actually engaged with the story or the characters.

The look of the film is great, cinematography, design, costumes, locations, they all combined well to set the feel of 70s L. A.

Worth a watch if you're a fan of P. T. Anderson films.