Reviews

There's little explanation needed for this movie, the incredible hype that this movie has generated is testament to that; however, if you really are coming into this movie with no clue as to what it is, firstly how big a rock are you under? Secondly, I would advise you turn back for now. This film is a culmination of the wider Marvel Cinematic Universe that has been developing for the past decade and it would be a waste to walk in to the theatre without previously immersing yourself into it. I know it sounds arduous but I truly feel that to fully appreciate what this movie has done, you need to familiarise yourself with the rest of the cinematic universe. So go, look up a viewing guide to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, buy a shedload of DVDs and set aside about 30 hours (phew!) of your time before you return.

I'm assuming that I'm dealing with those of you that are familiar with the films at this point, and have no fear, there are no spoilers to be found here so you can read on without worry. There'll be those of you that have been swept up in the whirlwind of hype of Infinity War, and there will be those who are sceptical of the seemingly incredulous speeds that this whirlwind is reaching, I'll tell you now that I was a member of the latter group; the expectations for this movie were astronomical, but, against all odds, they were met. To my surprise, Avengers: Infinity War hit every note for me, the acting, the absolutely gorgeous spectacle (including some of the most riveting and inventive action sequences I have ever seen), meticulous and outrageous action, and the now-trademark Marvel comedy, it is not without mistakes but it hits when it counts and evidences a maturation of the wider cinematic universe, shedding the mistakes of the past in favour of a newer, realer tone that breaks free of the classic Marvel-mould.

The two key issues I had found with previous entries were the poor execution of the main villains (think Thor: The Dark World) and the incessant comedic undercutting of sincere scenes (think Ragnarok). If these failures were keeping you anxious for this movie, know that they are largely fixed, the comedic tone is still finding that balance but is well-dispensed for the majority of the movie (and is nowhere near as distracting as it was in Ragnarok). The sincerity of this movie is well-used and certain scenes had left me a little misty-eyed, the raw emotion in this film was a welcome surprise. The second gripe, development of the main villains, is the greatest success of this movie, a great deal of time is put into ensuring that the stereotypical big-bad isn't just a stereotypical big-bad, instead his perspective is presented to you in an almost sympathetic way; perhaps you won't agree with his aims, but you understand them, and that's a first for the Marvel movies and is something that should be celebrated because it was achieved with great success.

Infinity War has accomplished a fantastic feat in the biggest crossover event in cinematic history, almost all of your favourite heroes will all feature here, all given respectable screen-time in their own subplots (of which there are many) before crossing paths with each other. It is a joy to see the immense cast that Marvel have been building for the past 10 years quip and bicker together as they face almost impossible odds as one. This summer blockbuster of epic proportions is not one to be missed and is a love-letter to the hordes of fans who have persevered since the beginning of Marvel-mania in 2008.

A movie about a group of actors subjected to the mercy of the jungle and an organised band of heroin traffickers isn't a typical pitch for a comedy, but man, it really, really works.

It's the hilarious performances of the star-studded cast that make the movie so great. The film is blessed with the likes of Jack Black, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Cruise, Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. (as well as many more), all of whom were perfect for their roles; Tom Cruise as a bald, foul-mouthed studio executive and Robert Downey Jr. as a white Australian / black soldier (no, that isn't typo) are by far the funniest performance of the movie, almost every scene the each of them were in had me crying.

One thing I will say about the movie, and this isn't a fault per say, is that it goes into maximum overdrive with the gore, action and explosions, and isn't concerned about treading over toes when it comes to what some may perceive as more sensitive topics such as mental retardation and race; the jokes made are obviously not malicious but if you're looking for a clean comedy or have a (very) low tolerance for those kinds of things then you won't enjoy the film. You have been warned.

Tropic Thunder is just oozing layers of satire and parody, is jam-packed with an A-list cast, explosions and manages to find that balance between obnoxiously crazy and obnoxiously safe with great success. Easily one of the funniest and most enjoyable movies I've seen in a while, just fantastic.

An order of five nuns are given orders to repurpose an old concubine palace and establish a convent high in the mountains of the Himalayas. The sisters of the order soon find troubles as the oppressively isolated atmosphere of the convent takes its toll on them.

The film takes on a unique atmosphere of constricting loneliness through various methods; the mountain-top convent is given an ethereal, other-worldly effect to it, which is emphasised through the use of painterly backdrops, this fairytale-esque escapism soon gives way to the distinct horror-movie feel that slowly seeps in as the runtime ticks by, and the central theme of repressed desires and their tendency to resurface produces a pervasive sense of unease that only gains momentum as the movie progresses.

This uneasy atmosphere lends itself well to the plot, which centres on the character Sister Clodagh, however, there are some confusing turns that the story takes as well as some unresolved or nonsensical plot points. For a movie with such a tight set of characters, it seems odd that there is still some fat to be trimmed in this area, entire characters and their subplots serve no purpose other than to be used as awkwardly placed plot devices to further the story in an attempt to emphasise the themes of the film. It is not successfully done and the movie suffers for its rather lazy plot that is largely held afloat by the performances of the cast.

Black Narcissus' unique tone, underscored with a bubbling atmosphere of repressed emotions makes for a tense viewing, and while the occasional lazy shortcut taken by the plot is an annoying distraction, this eerie ambiance and the compelling performances of the cast result in very good final piece.

Boiled down to the very basics, Blade Runner is a detective story set in a dystopian alternate-future version of Los Angeles. However, the emphasis of the film is not placed on the setting, nor is it placed on the usual trappings of the sci-fi genre (think galactic dogfights or laser battles), instead the focus of the movie falls squarely on one central theme; the nature of humanity - our emotions, our mortality, and our purpose. These themes are elegantly told through the story of a policeman, Deckard, who is tasked with hunting down a group of Replicants (genetically-engineered humans) and it does so with great success.

The only shortcoming I can think of for this otherwise stellar movie is the comparatively thin plot, it is clear that it was merely a tool, subservient to the greater aims of the director's vision but this is just a nit-pick as the movie's purpose was to communicate deeper questions of humanity, which it did very effectively at the expense of its detective story.

In fact, the plot's subservience to the themes of the movie is what makes this movie stand out, it is well-constructed and inter-connected in almost every aspect. Each facet of the movie's design is in service to the key themes of the movie which keep you intellectually stimulated and emotionally invested throughout the entirety of the runtime, nothing feels superfluous or in need of trimming, the structure of the film was near flawless. The themes were clear, effectively communicated and excellently given voice to by the entire cast, with Rutger Hauer's stand-out performance being particularly haunting, intriguingly sad and profound.

As previously mentioned, this movie doesn't rely on the grandiose spectacle that many sci-fi films are wont to employ, but that isn't to say that the film is not visually stunning. Rather, the bombastic spectacle has been substituted for a far more subtle (and far more effective) approach. Visually, the movie strikes a very unique tone, the dirty, poorly-lit scenes result in a sense of unease and anxious turbulence that underscores the entire film, intensified by the uncanny but brilliant soundtrack by Vangelis which had an eerily spiritual ambiance to it. Blade Runner makes great use of its claustrophobic atmosphere, thriving both in moments of tension and contemplation all with a slow, deliberate pacing that gradually builds momentum until it finally delivers a powerful and chilling climax, leaving the audience to ponder the questions it has posed. The message delivered is not one spoon-fed, it is left to the viewer to piece together of their own accord to then discuss and debate.

Blade Runner is a probing examination of the very nature of humanity, it confidently delves into deep philosophical themes and encourages the audience to consider and debate them. It accomplishes what I believe to be the crowning achievement of any form of art, it pushes the viewer to look at himself and the universe around him, and think.

Everest is based on the true story of Robert Hall and Scott Fischer's expedition to the summit of Mount Everest. It's a premise that suggests an emotional character-driven story of two men braving the elements as the ascend Everest. Unfortunately, the movie never reaches the dizzying heights that its title suggests.

There are some elements of the movie that do really well; the majesty of Everest is excellently captured with beautiful aerial shots and visceral down-to-earth shots of the climbers which convey the lethality of Everest, imbuing the movie with a sense of tension throughout. However, this effect is severely diminished by the lack of characterisation that is the movie's greatest flaw.

Primarily suffering from a lack of focus, it attempts to introduce the characters of all those involved in the real life expedition, perhaps this was as a homage to them and their families but it stopped the movie having a clear protagonist. Additionally, the development that these characters get is very, very limited. It may be that the adherence source material was the downfall of this movie as there is a distinct lack of any character arcs.

As such, emotional moments are scarce. Despite the many on-screen tears, you will be hard-pressed to find yourself feeling for these climbers you barely know no matter how well-acted they are (and they are, Jason Clarke as Rob Hall stands out). Thinking on it, I can only recall the one scene which really struck a chord with me (once again, sold very well by Clarke) but, on the whole, I was apathetic to the plight of the climbers.

Do not expect this movie to blow you away with a story about people and their attempt to conquer Mount Everest, it settles for being a half-baked disaster movie that spends a lot of time building itself up only to sabotage its own potential with poor development of the cast.

Brooklyn is the story of Eilis, a young Irish woman crossing to 1950s America to start the life she couldn't find in Ireland. At first overwhelmed, she soon finds her feet and the love of her life until tragedy and an unexpected match leaves her torn between her lives in Brooklyn and Ireland.

The focus of the movie is place strongly on Eilis and her personal struggles; her sense of loneliness and vulnerability being homed in on by the director in an effort to elicit an emotional response, the beautiful musical score went a long way ensuring this hit the mark most times (though the emotion of the opening scenes and some in the third act felt very contrived). The introverted personality that we follow for the opening of the movie made for an uninteresting protagonist, aimlessly plodding along until she finds love in the form of an Italian plumber (yes, really...no, his name isn't Mario).

However, the slow start is soon made up for. Set in an idyllic alternate Brooklyn adhering to the stereotypical 'American Dream' holding a quietly romantic tone throughout (as dictated by lead Saoirse Ronan) as the couple fall in love in the most unabashedly cheesy but endearing way. It didn't feel like anything new but it did feel very well done, in large part to the charming performances of Ronan and Cohen throughout.

Following this, the movie began to outstay its welcome, the effect lack of a fleshed out secondary cast were felt and my attention would waver a bit as the third act commenced, suffering from the same forced emotion of the opening scenes of the movie. While the dichotomy of Eilis' identity was well-established, the film was taken over by an oppressively overly-sentimental tone which made me feel detached from the movie rather than investing me deeper.

Brooklyn is a slow-burning love story and a unique immigrant story centred on the identity crisis of Eilis, though it suffers from some drawbacks; most notably a lackluster secondary cast and contrived attempts at sentimentality in places. Despite this, it's still something I'd recommend for its lovable protagonists (Ronan and Cohen) and their winning performances.

I went into this movie expecting classic Jackie Chan action, unfortunately this is not what I got. Instead I was given a much more drab and cynical political thriller in which an aging Jackie played a broken father seeking revenge for the death of his daughter, stopping at nothing to achieve his goal. A role that Jackie isn't known for playing, and it shows.

The pacing of the movie crawls by at a snail's pace, with the first half being painfully slow and while a decent attempt is made at a coherent plot and some backstory in the second half, there's no getting around the tired political ramblings we've seen before in every other political thriller. Despite this movie being advertised as a Jackie Chan film, he's side-lined for huge swathes of time in favour of these cheesy, cookie-cutter scenes of the struggle between the IRA and the British. When you are finally rewarded with some action don't expect to see the Jackie you're used to. The character has been made deliberately slower and his age has been emphasised, an odd move with a talent like Jackie Chan at your disposal. As such, the spontaneous, comedic action of young Jackie Chan has been swapped out for unsatisfying Vietcong-style traps and bomb-making, which seems like such a disappointing waste of Jackie Chan's ability.

The entire cast was serviceable with Pierce Brosnan (as angry antagonist) and Jackie Chan (as angry protagonist) standing out more than the rest in their roles. The issue was not the acting, however, rather the poor realisation of the main characters left the actors with unrelatable, callous personalities to work with that only made the slog between the rare moments of action feel longer. You are made to sit through two hours scummy characters take turns showing you how scummy they are and yes, that is about as uncompelling as it sounds... even Jackie couldn't save this one.

Looper drew me in with its interesting premise; a hired gun (Joe) who assassinates targets for a criminal mob from 30 years into the future until he comes face to face with himself. It was a unique idea and the concept of 'modern-Joe vs. future Joe' translated to film really well for the first half of the movie but at around the half-way point the barebones explanation of the details of time-travel, paradoxes and alternate timelines is waved away with a succinct "I don't want to talk about time travel shit." (yes, an actual line in a movie about time-travel) as the plot became more complex. This was a disappointment in a movie who's main draw (for me) was its potential for thought-provoking questions on its sci-fi premise, what I got instead was a more character-driven plotline within a looser framework of sci-fi concepts which, while enjoyable, still left me somewhat let down.

The de-emphasis of time-travel and the minutia of its consequences contradict the grounded tone of the rest of the movie, a focus is placed on the feelings of human beings, and the world seems feasible but the hand-wavey fashion that the film deals with the core idea of time-travel (which is vital to the plot) ruined the immersion for me. It demands a suspension of disbelief so great that it softens the emotional impact of the performance of Joseph Gordon-Levitt (who is the star of the show), and the supporting cast of Emily Blunt and Pierce Gagnon (who are central to the plot) The characters are the main focus of the story but even this isn't perfectly executed, Bruce Willis' character, while competently acted, is mostly just used to further to plot and shoot things which did not make for a compelling watch.

The movie suffers for its deviation from the initial premise and its confusing venture into a low-effort and ill-conceived dip into vague, supernatural thriller territory on the biological super-evolution of humans (which is about as unexpected and awkwardly introduced as it sounds) and the claims of movie's cleverness are only half true, while on the one hand it presents the motivations, desires and emotions of its characters with some skill and humanity but on the other a surprisingly low-effort attempt is made in fleshing out the mechanics behind the time-travel which I believe to be a major misstep on the writer-director's part, holding back what could have been a truly great, original movie.

For a story that revolves around a mysterious phenomenon dubbed 'the Shimmer' which seemingly bends the laws of physics as we understand them, I was anticipating a certain element of suspension of disbelief. What I wasn't anticipating was the obnoxious ambiguity that is so persistently present throughout the entire movie, it was infuriating that the two main thoughts that crossed my mind flitted between, 'wow, that looks nice,' and '...wait, what?'

There's no concerted effort made to explicitly define anything, the movie leaves almost every aspect open to interpretation in what felt like an attempt to hide the fact that it had nothing important to say other than an it was an adaptation of an interesting idea (which is mostly conveyed through fancy SFX). The significance of the Shimmer is never delved into throughout the 120 minutes of runtime and the motivations of the characters are glossed over with little to no thought which leaves you with no shortage of unrelatable or unlikeable personalities spouting awkward dialogue to each other for no reason. It led to the formation of the expedition crew seeming rushed - a squad consisting of a loner psychologist, a grieving ex-soldier turned biology professor, a paramedic, an abrasive anthropologist and a physics graduate sets out to investigate the source of the Shimmer, an unlikely group with zero chemistry who meet the poor expectations their line-up inspires and often leave you wondering why or how they are qualified to undertake the mammoth task of investigating the most perplexing scientific incident in human history. The cast was largely hit-and-miss but Natalie Portman (who plays the protagonist, Lena), thankfully, gave a compelling performance but, unfortunately, it was the only one of the movie and can't make up for shortcomings of the rest of the movie.

The film begins to pick up late in the movie as the special effects are really able to show off the mind-bending reality of the Shimmer; crystalline trees, mutated creatures and a cornucopia of vibrant plant life make for a remarkable and unique aesthetic that looks beautiful in places. It even succeeds in inserting a sense of unease in the face of the unknown which gave off a horror-movie vibe and was skilfully sold in the unnerving recreation of what looks like a 'Crocotta' (a beast from medieval folklore). However, the perverse curiosity of the wonderfully weird world of the Shimmer soon wears off as the confusing story plods along in its absurd way.

The movie falls flat as the plot approaches the finale; the profound revelations that are to be expected after an hour and a half of build-up are swapped for a frustratingly opaque cop-out of a conclusion which leaves a bitter taste in your mouth as you realise that the two hours you just spent persevering in the hopes that the vague puzzle pieces the movie had been doling out would finally come together to show you something intelligent were in vain.

In Bruges was a movie that took it's time to really sink its teeth into me; it began as a slow, chilled-out meander around Bruges (the Belgian town in which the movie is set) that was interspersed with a bit of witty back-and-forth from the two main protagonists (a couple of Irish hitmen preparing to deal with the fallout after a job gone wrong). Whilst the setting of Bruges was interesting in and of itself, I wasn't used to a movie focusing on so little for so long, however, by the time that the stakes were ratcheted up in the second half of the movie I noticed that I had connected with the characters on a level that surprised me.

Of course, this was largely down to the excellent cast, the two main characters Ray (played by Colin Farrell) and Ken (played by Brendan Gleeson) have good chemistry and make their flawed characters endearing and relatable. Some credit should also be given to the writers, the cast were given great lines to work with. Admittedly, I found the comedic tone a little strange (especially the weird midget jokes) but it works when it counts and the movie successfully uses humour to explore the inner demons of the hitmen without trivialising their emotions. A more conventional movie would opt out of taking the opportunity to poke fun of its protagonist's emotional turmoil but that's what makes the movie so refreshing; it strikes a balance between humour and thoughtfulness and gets it (mostly) right, adding a breath of fresh air to an already pretty unique movie. I say mostly as the plot gets more and more ridiculous as it goes on, events start of quite tame but soon Bruges opens up as it's unconvincing locals introduce themselves and devolve into unconvincing plot devices, it was good for a few good laughs but felt very lazy and pulled me out of the movie.

Saying that, I still enjoyed the film, the cast did a good job of holding the movie up as the plot began to thin near the climax. Overall, the entire 'feel' of In Bruges is very... unconventional and while it is lacking in areas, it's setting, characters and humour are still a welcome step back from typical Hollywood blockbusters.

The movie is about five different teenagers - 'a brain...and an athlete... and a basket case...a princess...and a criminal' who are locked up together for a day of detention. I won't lie, this sounded like a boring movie to me but I watched it anyway to 'culture' myself on iconic movies of the '80s... or something.

I'd heard that this movie really got teenagers, and maybe it did at the time but the characters don't really hold up as much as they might have in the '80s. The protagonists are clear-cut clichés of the cliques that usually exist in Hollywood's stereotyped high-school movies, these kind of social groups don't really exist anymore (if they did at all); nowadays the athletes hang out with the brains, the princesses hang out with the basket cases and the criminals... I don't know who they hang out with but the point I'm making is that I don't think a modern teenager can really relate to the teens in this movie. Saying that, the main point that the movie grapples with is exactly what I just said - that brains, athletes, princesses, basket cases and criminals can and should be friends but I feel that this argument is now about a decade too late to relate to which sometimes makes the teenagers feel somewhat 'alien' to me.

The one thing that I really thought the movie got right was the actors, they're really excellent and spoke authentically about the universal experience of being a teenager (minus the weird cliques). They were the focus of the movie and carried it well until the end, listening to their stories and watching them form friendships was fun to watch and there was enough humour and quiet moments for you to just start to unravel the personalities of the five lead characters which, in my opinion, makes the movie interesting enough to watch.

First off, if you didn't already know, the movie is based on the story of Moses from the book of Exodus. This might seem like heavy stuff for an animated movie, but I think it's handled well; the writing ensures darker implications of the story aren't skimped out on to make it more child-friendly but the movie still managed to rein enough in to make it so even young children can access the message in the story. I think there needed to be a little more fleshing out of Moses and his childhood and some downtime with the protagonists to slow down the (in my opinion) very quick pace of the movie and let the movie breathe a bit, but on the whole the story hits all the key points and takes itself seriously (particularly in its dramatic flair), which might be for the best since it proclaims itself as a respectful and accurate recount of the story of Moses.

Now in terms of visuals and animation, this movie looks really good even by today's standards. For me it was the greatest achievement of the movie; the movie looked like a mix between beautiful hand-drawn and painterly style with a little bit of CGI thrown in and I have great respect for those who worked on it. If you have a problem with the movie, it will definitely not be the animation because it is really, really outstanding and the attention to detail put into the animation really helps sell the characters and story.

Another aspect that the movie shined in was the soundtrack - it was phenomenal. This movie has one of the best soundtracks I've heard in a long time, with the fantastic art and animation, the music goes a long way in helping you connect with the characters in the relatively short time they have on-screen.

The movie is definitely worth watching, the dramatic story, masterful animation and moving soundtrack all ensure that but the one shortfall that the movie suffers is that far too many things are brushed over; years are skipped over, significant events happen in quick succession before you have time to digest their consequences and there isn't enough quieter moments to disperse the high emotion, energetic scenes. Still... I recommend it, it's a good watch.