Change Your Image
connorwburnett
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Detroit: Become Human (2018)
Peak storytelling
I don't review games very often. I remember back when "God of War" (2018) came out, I wrote pages of notes in preparation for some mega essay I was going to write about why I thought it was this incredible masterpiece of human ingenuity. But I never got round to doing it, probably because I didn't have the time or skill to write such a thing.
Films are much easier to recommend to people, as you can assume everyone has access to a streaming service where it will be available for free, or they can use Amazon prime to buy it, or buy the DVD. Well, on second thought no one has a DVD player anymore, so the last option is unlikely.
But you can't just recommend a game to anyone. Besides from the fact that a lot of people can't play games because they don't have a current gen console or high-spec PC, games have a stigma around them that films don't have. I can feel comfortable talking about films with anyone, but I can't with games, why is that? It's the gaming stigma that labels so called "gamers" as lonely, unemployed weirdos. This is something that genuinely gets on my nerves as there are a lot of games that I truly adore, as much as I do with films, that I would love to talk about, but I simply don't feel comfortable doing so. Videogames, in the grand scheme of things are still a pretty new medium, especially in comparison to films, so over time you'd imagine they become more socially accepted in the public eye.
Games like David Cage's "Detroit: Become Human" are incredibly important as they bridge the gap between films and games.
Remember those choose-your-own adventure books, Detroit is the video game version of that.
In essence, you're watching a film, but all of the key plot points are left up to you, you become the author of the story.
Detroit is set in the year 2038, the invention of androids has changed the world forever as unemployment rates rise to 27%. Androids were designed to serve humans, unable to decline any human request. We enter this world in a period of change, androids are beginning to defy their commands in search of freedom, these androids are labelled as deviants. You follow the stories of 3 androids as their journeys intertwine, you must decide their actions and the roles you want them to play in this world on the edge of a tipping-point.
For some context, I just finished my second full playthrough of Detroit last night and all 3 of the androids had completely different resolutions to my initial playthrough.
Detroit only takes about 10 hours to play, its full of twists and turns you won't expect. You'll recognise a lot of the faces, especially Clancy Brown and Lance Henriksen, who all put in fantastic performances.
So, you're probably thinking, that's all great but what does the game actually play like?
It's really simple, the core gameplay mechanic is quick time events. For example, in a fight scene the game will flash up a button on screen, you have to press it before the timer runs out. If you press it in the time, you'll land a punch or dodge an attack (depending on the scenario), if you don't press it in time, or press the wrong button, you'll get hit in return. Fail too many of these events and you'll lose the fight. But unlike in most conventional games, instead of returning to the last checkpoint, you'll character will just lose the fight and the story will change in response to this.
These sequences are always exhilarating, with the knowledge that, if you mess up, your android will face the consequences. And importantly, androids can die, so don't try and test the game thinking that, "I'm too early in the story for anyone to die". There were plenty of times where I was left in shock that something happened, so, as a word of warning, take your choices seriously.
The action sequences are brilliant, but Detroit's true value comes with the decisions the game forces you to make. Your relationship with the other characters in the story are dependent on how you interact with them in dialogue scenes. Often the game will give you the choice on what your android says to the other characters and how they say it, which will affect your relationships with these characters greatly.
You need to be mindful of how you come across to everyone you talk to in the game as your actions can close or open doors later in the story.
Most importantly, all of the key choices affecting the narrative, the game leaves completely up to you.
Trust me, when you enter the last couple hours of the game you will be stressed out, but in the best way possible.
This will be one of the most engaging games you ever play. I've played it twice and I still think I can play it at least 2 more times and still get completely different stories. It's a very complex game but delivered in a simple way making it appropriate for all types of people, those who regularly play games and those that never play games, it's that good.
Seriously, if there was ever a game I would recommend to the general public, it would be Detroit. You would really be doing yourself a disservice by not playing it at some point in your life.
I hope you can find as much enjoyment in it as I do. I will be starting my third playthrough sometime soon.
The Crow (1994)
Intriguing, but lacks edge
"The Crow" has a simple premise, murdered man is brought back to life to avenge the death of him and his fiancé. But I can assure you it is not a simple film. For those of you that don't know, lead star, Brandon Lee died partway through production after he was shot by a gun unknowingly loaded with a live round.
I didn't know about this until after I watched the film, but when I found out, I can't say it shocked me. This is a film that has a lot of issues in terms of character, pacing and overall narrative structure, which are far easier for me to understand when I know the context, the unfortunate passing of the lead actor certainly explains it.
Therefore, I can't really hold a lot of my critiques against the filmmakers as it's a triumph that they managed to release a completed film in any shape considering the likely trauma Lee's death gave them. But I think this is an interesting film to discuss so I'll share my thoughts anyway.
What grabbed me most about "The Crow" was it's aesthetic and world building. It successfully flaunts this kind of gothic, grimy style which helps to make it stand out visually. The opening sequence is particularly well-shot and intriguing, however, unfortunately the rest of the film isn't able to maintain this fluidity.
This film comes off as confused to me, in terms of what it wants to achieve from a narrative perspective. Without getting into spoilers, a lot of stuff happens at a break-neck pace in the first 30 minutes, I was genuinely confused how they were going to fill the rest of the run-time. The pacing is very strange, but I can't say I was ever bored. I was hooked by the world, and I stayed for the goofy comedy.
And yes, for me this is a comedy. I think its strange that it's marketed as a horror film. There is a lot of violence, but its far more of an action comedy to me.
The editing was a little messy, felt rough and choppy to me a lot of the time. Usually I can ignore continuity errors, but there were so many here that it started to distract me.
I didn't love the cinematography, felt far too basic for me a lot of the time. I think if they were a bit more experimental it would have enhanced the film's other qualities far more.
That is probably my biggest problem with "The Crow", I don't think it fully commits to the crazy high paced joy-ride you know it wants to be. Its lacking slightly in too many areas for its full potential to be fulfilled, which is a shame as I think it could have been something really great.
I'm sure that, without the passing of Brandon Lee, they would have been able to polish this film far more to get it to a stage it deserves.
I would recommend most people to watch this film. Brandon Lee puts in a really captivating performance and it's a true shame we didn't get to see the rest of his acting career. I.
Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)
Spectacle without substance
Look, this film is an absolute mess. It's an hour longer than it needs to be, the writing is absolutely abysmal at times and most of the characters are annoying as hell. But even then, I still had such a great time watching it. In some ways I love this film, it encapsulates the "blockbuster movie" experience so well that, at several moments, tricked me into believing I was actually watching something good.
When you stand back and look at the film as a whole confined experience it is just plain odd. When I walked out of the cinema the one word I kept describing it with was weird. It is weird, weird, weird. It blew me away honestly, how they could get so much bang on perfect and so much astoundingly awful. I suppose I'll start talking specifics now, refraining from any spoilers of course.
The first 15 or so minutes of the film felt like I was watching a video game cutscene, and this is a problem which plagued a lot of the film for me. A lot of the time I struggled to view the story from the perspective of any one character, greatly detaching me from the events taking place. I think most of this can be explained by the rather strange way this film is shot and edited at times. There are many sequences in the film that look beautiful, don't get me wrong. But at other times I was extremely confused over what the cinematographer's aim was. On countless occasions the camera would do this awkward zoom-in which made it feel like I was watching some kind of nature documentary, and, during many of the action set-pieces the editing was cut together so quickly when the scene would have greatly benefitted from longer takes. Overall, this contributed to the feeling that I was just watching a pure spectacle, rather than a character driven story. And yes, maybe that was intended and if so, fair enough. But if that is the case then what is the point spending so much screen time attempting to develop your characters, because I can tell you, I didn't care about a single one.
I'm not going to go into the plot at all, but wow, it is certainly nothing unique or special. Of course, I wasn't expecting it to be and I'm sure that the same can be said for Avatar 1, not that I can remember any of it. Let's just say, don't expect anything you haven't seen a hundred times before, this is just your basic action, adventure storyline, which is totally OK if they nail the visuals and the climatic set pieces, everyone knows what's going to happen so just make the journey as enjoyable as possible. So, did Avatar 2 achieve this?
For the most part yes. It almost feels stupid for me to praise the visual effects and CGI because they are so obviously fantastic. However, I think its important for me to mention that there are some sequences, particularly those that are underwater, that I thought were worth the cost of viewing alone. Some sections of this film are just jaw-droppingly beautiful to gaze at, it is a triumphant achievement in visual effects. However, saying this, they still haven't completely nailed it yet. A lot of the shots which involved an avatar and human character in the same frame really pulled me out of it. I'm not sure whether it was a lighting issue or something, but they never felt they were truly taking up the same physical space. My absolute favourite aspect of the film was the sound. They did such an outstanding job with the foley. I could feel every footstep and every drop of rain, definitely worth the cinema experience! I loved it and, as per usual, the score was fantastic. The Avatar theme is definitely one of my favourites, fits the film perfectly.
So, the most important question, should you watch it? If I had to give you a straight answer I would say yes, it is worth watching. The sound and visuals alone make this a wonderful experience in cinemas, something I'm sure most people were expecting. It's just such a shame that the film falls short in almost every other aspect of its presentation, and I've limited my rating to a 4 because of this. If I were to rate it on my pure enjoyment, I would have to give it an 8, but that's not how I rate films.
Uncharted (2022)
Bland cash grab
A lifeless experience hampered further by the incessant chatting around me in the cinema. This is a film we have all watched at least ten times. If you think it looks just like every other cash grab action film attached to an already developed franchise I can assure that you are exactly right.
Uncharted is based on the single player adventure puzzle games with the same name. To put it simply its a treasure hunt story akin to National Treasure.
In fact if you've seen National Treasure you have basically already seen Uncharted, they are incredibly similar. There is not a single original concept in Uncharted, I'm not saying every film has to be a completely individual unique experience but every film, at least in my eyes, should strive for excellence. Uncharted had its eyes set on money and I'm sure it will achieve this, funding countless bland sequels for the next decade.
Well, what can you really expect from the director that brought you Venom and the sub-par Zombieland? Not much and you don't get much.
The cinematography and framing is competent yet bland, no different to any other of these types of action films really, other than one long take which I found quite visually appealing.
The action follows suit, competent but just not all that interesting. There are constant inconsistencies, my favourite revolving around the weight of gold, and much of it was so unrealistic and over choreographed that it was hard to keep track of what was going on.
One positive thing I will say is to do with the film's pacing and tone. Although Uncharted is bland I can't say I was ever bored, thanks mainly to the rather short runtime, even then I think they could have cut quite a lot to make it even smoother. The tone is consistently cheerful which meant the film avoided the sad ending to act 2 trope that always bugs me to death. However, in exchange the stakes always felt very low preventing my full engagement.
I never thought Tom Holland would be right for the role and I can confirm my suspicions were true. He is simply too young and lacks a lot of charm a character like Nathan Drake needs. I also really despised the line delivery from all the actors in a lot of scenes, it might have been more of an audio mixing problem but a lot of the time I struggled to understand what they were saying.
Uncharted is bland and not worth your time, please do not waste your money watching this.
127 Hours (2010)
Deeply engaging with a couple flaws
127 Hours is based on true events, a mountain climber gets trapped under a boulder whilst canyoneering alone in Utah.
What drew me to watch 127 Hours was the director, Danny Boyle. If you have read my review of 28 Days Later you'll understand how much I enjoy his style of filmmaking so I had a good feeling 127 Hours would be right up my alley.
And it did not disappoint whatsoever. 127 Hours is a deeply engaging film for many reasons, the 3 most notable that I will be discussing being the editing, cinematography and James Franco's performance.
127 Hours has a very unique approach to editing, its incredibly versatile. The film will opt for quick cuts or long dramatic takes depending on the meaning being enhanced. At multiple times, especially the beginning and end, we'd be given 3 different perspectives divided equally on screen which I found to be very effective and wonderfully experimental. Overall, the editing is similar in style to Slumdog Millionaire, another Danny Boyle directorial feature, and is handled greatly which arguably should have landed them the Oscar.
I would argue the same for the film's cinematography. Throughout, 127 Hours is shot exceptionally well, knowing when to present extravagant long shots and when to slow things down with excruciating close ups. Amplified largely by the beautiful locations used, 127 Hours just looks great.
I've always thought that James Franco was a very good actor and he definitely proved that here. He delivers an incredibly believable and at times comedic performance which helps to lighten the films tone and keep the audience engaged.
Perhaps what I love most about 127 Hours is its pacing. This film just flies by which is a tremendous achievement seeing as the plot doesn't really allow for much action at all. 127 Hours wasn't afraid to get weird with its imagery which made it a very fun watch.
So you're probably confused at why I haven't given this a 9/10. Although I do really love this film, it has some shortcomings which subtracted from my experience.
Spoilers upcoming here:
I did not enjoy the film's presentation of James Franco's relationship, I thought it was unnecessary and would have preferred a complete focus on his escape from the boulder or maybe even another scene like the fake interview. To be clear, I don't want anything to be added to this film as I think its pacing is its best attribute, I would just rather the weaker elements, like his relationship, to be removed because it wasn't developed to the standard of everything else in the film.
I always believe that the most important part of a film is the ending and sadly I think this is 127 Hour's worst aspect. I'm completely happy with the events of the ending of course, I just really wasn't a fan of how it was presented, especially the music.
I had a great time with 127 Hours and strongly recommend it, although, it does certainly have a couple flaws which hold it back from being truly outstanding.
Synecdoche, New York (2008)
Absolute masterpiece
A synecdoche is when a part of something refers to the whole of that something, for example, Liverpool conceded two goals to Manchester United. This statement is referring to Liverpool FC rather than the whole city of Liverpool, thus a synecdoche.
The concept of synecdoche, unsurprisingly, is a crucial aspect of Synecdoche, New York. A film which explores deeply into depression, self identity and the passage of time.
We follow Caden, a troubled character, desperate to achieve success in his life as he attempts to orchestrate a "larger than life" theatrical play replicating the city of New York.
The amount of themes at play in Synecdoche is almost frightening. A film intensely hard to wrap your head around at first glance. Thorough engagement is necessary yet equally rewarded with countless interpretations hidden just below the surface.
Synecdoche, New York is a film which grows alongside you. No matter your age, background or gender you will be able to develop your own unique interpretations of the events, deriving your own meaning and satisfaction.
Its so beautiful I find it hard to put into words, some will argue its depressing and I certainly do not disagree there. But its the kind of depressing that makes you question your own life and reflect upon what you will leave behind, how you will be remembered after you're gone. I hope that doesn't put anyone off watching the film, I believe a film that has the power to make the viewer question their own reality is what artistic film should be all about.
Outside of its ability to be interpreted in countless ways, Synecdoche thrives as a thrilling character study which is enhanced drastically through Kaufman's creative decision making. As with all Kaufman's work his writing really shines through, helping to paint the film's world perfectly. The cinematography and performances are nailed to the same extent. Philip Seymour Hoffman in particular absolutely blows it out of the park.
An aspect of Synecdoche I loved personally was its soundtrack. It helped encapsulate the film's themes brilliantly and create an even more compelling experience.
All I have left to say without entering spoiler territory is that I recommend Synecdoche, New York as essential viewing. An absolute masterpiece which deserves complete recognition.
Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021)
Absolutely awful
Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021) is the fifth attempt at a film for the book series by the same name. I've always had a soft spot for the first three, they have a great deal of character and good performances. The Long Haul was terrible, an obvious cash grab lacking all of the personality of the previous trilogy and a whole lot more toilet humor. So when I say that I hated this film even more than The Long Haul that should be enough for you to piece together just how awful this is.
Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021) loosely follows the story of the first Wimpy Kid book. Greg and Rowley going to Middle school, coming across the cheese touch and a few bumps in their friendship. By all accounts this is the same plot as the (2010) live-action film, however, I did find it interesting that they didn't include much reference to the school play or wrestling and made no reference to Greg and Rowley joining the Safety Patrol. Missing out on all these events resulted in this film being really short, which was a good decision, I'm not sure I could have put myself through much more of this.
The real problem here is just the total lack of identity. You could tell the people making this really didn't care to emulate the feeling of the books, because none of that is present here. This just feels like a really cheap run-of-the-mill animated film. Talking about cheap, wow, now this was cheap. The animation style and quality looks straight out of 2006. But my real problem comes with the sound and audio.
Of course a lot of the problems with the audio can be put down to poor performances and they were poor don't get me wrong. I wouldn't even blame the voice actors, more so the casting and the direction. Almost everyone's delivery here was awful. All the lines sound like first attempts, I struggled to understand what they were saying a lot of the time. But the real problem comes down to the audio mixing. It was just way too quiet a lot of time.
I haven't really got much else to say here, apart from this: please do not watch this to see how bad it is. It isn't "so bad its good" or even "so bad its funny" its is just really boring.
I'm Thinking of Ending Things (2020)
Something special
I'm Thinking of Ending Things is a very clunky title, so for review purposes I'll be calling it "Thinking of", although I am aware of how ridiculous that sounds.
"Thinking of" explores, well, I'm not completely sure. It's been a couple weeks since I first watched it, I assumed by now I would start to put the film's puzzle together to find its true meaning, however, I have been unsuccessful. I have completely refrained from looking at anyone else's take on it, as for me, the most fun part of these "open-case" films is trying to figure them out for myself, yet I have failed. This is one of the biggest achievements a film can have, being able to be enjoyed with and without a full understanding of its true meaning.
Anyway, back onto the topic of review. If I were to give someone an "abridged" synopsis of the film, it would be: a relatively new couple embark on a car journey through frigid temperatures to meet the boy's parents. Sounds simple, and yes, the film is simple, but this innate simplicity helps cover the brilliant complexities which begin to unravel as the film progresses. I'm going to avoid spoiler territory here, because I want this review to help propel people to go out and watch it rather than just read an analysis.
"Thinking of's" best attribute has to be its presentation of endless minimalistic qualities. Absolutely everything here is done completely intentionally, from small flickers in editing, short stops in dialogue and the composition of every single shot, the attention to detail is something to be marvelled.
"Thinking of" can switch from a beautiful depiction of the meaning of life and death to a rather tense thriller and then back to a distorted romance. In any other film I would put this down as a form of tonal whiplash, yet "Thinking of" dodges these complaints with ease, primarily thanks to just how intentional everything feels. The lighting and cinematography is absolutely spot on throughout and enhances the tone drastically. Each scene flows into the next remarkably well and, along with its masterwork of all the elements of film form, "Thinking of" can commonly evoke a dreamlike experience for the viewer, it certainly did for me.
"Thinking of" also harbours some truly outstanding performances. Jessie Buckley and David Thewlis were my personal favourites but not a single performance here is anything below excellent. Of course a performance is only as good as the script, and wow, the script here is just simply brilliant.
I've got nothing but praise here really. The only negative I could pull from the film is that, to get the most out of it, you really have to be actively engaging across the entire runtime otherwise you will miss some of the expertly packed minimal details. This stops the film from breaking into my top 10, I would really have to be in the right mood to watch it again even though I can't really pick out any big flaws.
If you somehow haven't gathered by now after reading this, I highly recommend everyone to go out of their way to watch this. It is truly something special and I know a lot of you will agree with me.
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
A massive step up for Marvel
I watched No Way Home about a week ago now, enough time for it to ferment in my mind. Usually my opinion on a film will change over the following days proceeding my original viewing, In the case of No Way Home my feelings towards the film have remained largely the same since I stepped out of the screening.
My expectations were high, very high. Did it live up to these expectations? Yes, I think it did, a remarkable accomplishment. Overall, I had a great time here, a really great time in fact. Let's be honest, it was predictable, messy and even contrived at points. But looking from a purely "entertaining" standpoint, No Way Home achieves what it sets out to do tremendously.
As mentioned, there are plenty of flaws, you could nit-pick for days. The film suffers from mild pacing issues around the beginning and particularly irritating plot points powered by infuriatingly stupid character moments. An obvious example can be found with Doctor Strange, which, without going off to much on a tangent, is by far the worst character in the film. His dialogue is repeatedly cringe inducing and he is just plain idiotic. Why wouldn't he discuss anything about the spell with Peter beforehand? It's almost as if all of his actions are purely to propel the plot.
A problem I have with almost all Marvel films is their lack of identity, their lack of artistic integrity and mind-numbingly boring aesthetic. To me, for a long time now, they have simply felt like factory films. Acting as a cash cow to be milked at least twice a year. No Way Home succeeds by breaking away from this mould. This is largely thanks to its creative cinematography and directing in many scenes, the action specifically is shot exceptionally well which helps massively to enhance the movement of Spider Man and the power of attacks being hurled back at force between the characters.
One slight flaw I found to be noticeable was the varied quality of performances. For the most part they were very good, Tom Holland really got a chance to show off his talent and Dafoe steals the show as he usually does. But I wasn't really that impressed with Jamie Foxx and I really wish they gave Tobey a lot more to do here. He'll always be my favourite representation of Spider Man however he was being noticeably overshadowed by Andrew Garfield.
Apart from a few rather minor details in the grand scheme of things, I really enjoyed my time with No Way Home. I hope this acts as a stepping stone for Marvel because this was a very promising improvement so they best not throw it away.
Serpico (1973)
An experience as brilliant as it is unique
Serpico is a film I continue to recommend to pretty much everyone I talk to. There are few films that capture the pure essence of character development and storytelling as well as Serpico.
The narrative is wonderfully unconventional as it is in a majority of Sidney Lumet's directorial features, with notable similarities to the later Dog Day Afternoon. Both films share this rather strange narrative and stellar performances from Al Pacino so usually I talk about them both at the same time.
On the topic of Al Pacino's performance in Serpico, wow, it is truly remarkable, one of my favourites ever. Serpico is shot very well, looks great, but what you really come here for is the writing, the dialogue and the performances, which are nailed expertly.
I do not want to get into spoilers whatsoever because I want this review to purely act as a more detailed recommendation, so I really implore anyone reading this to go watch it. A unique, masterfully crafted experience.
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
Ugly mess
Tarantino's directorial debut does not at all reach the heights of his future productions. It's an ugly mess masquerading as a complex narrative that flaunts being "unconventional" and "experimental" just for the sake of it.
I know he was working on an exceptionally low budget of $1.2 million but that doesn't mean I can't criticise how cheap the film looks. Of course, money isn't everything, an effective script is far more important. This is certainly true for most of Tarantino's work, especially Pulp Fiction which is primarily carried by it's writing. However, this simply isn't the case for Reservoir Dogs. So many scenes were far too long and filled with unnatural dialogue that repeatedly failed to grip me. The film lost me multiple times throughout its very short run time of 1hr 39 minutes, and which massively hampered my experience.
With exception of 4 scenes:
The opening in the diner,
The slow motion title sequence,
The torture scene,
The scene when they are given their names
I was rather uninterested. The reasons those 4 scenes grabbed me was because they embraced the comedic tone. So much of this film feels tonally conflicted, Thriller, Comedy even Horror? What is this? I suppose that was partially Tarantino's aim however it still gave me whiplash.
One aspect I can say for certain I did not enjoy was the cinematography. To me it felt very rushed, lazy and lacking of meaning. As if he sat a camera down in the room and just told Keitel and Buscemi to act. Which wouldn't be so much of a problem if the script was great, but as already covered it isn't. The performances certainly aren't bad yet they are clearly held back by the script and most of the characters simply feel like archetypes. Which, once again could be explained away by saying "Tarantino did that on purpose"
The last time I checked, lazy writing was still lazy writing. That's pretty much my biggest problem with Reservoir Dogs it's just so pretentious when, in truth, there is very little of substance here.
Prisoners (2013)
Suspenseful with a slightly weak ending
Prisoners succeeds in the building of tension whilst equally failing in pacing. This really is the sort of film that needs to be watched at least twice. There's a lot for any viewer to pick up from in terms of the films theming, subtext and hidden meaning for the first time around. Prisoners is a film packed to the brim, asking its audience many questions, although not necessarily answering them all to the extent you may expect.
The story follows a detective - Jake Gyllenhaal - on the hunt to find a kidnapper, brought to his attention through the abduction of two children in the local area.
A synopsis like that certainly peaked my interest, however, that wasn't what go me attached to the film in the first place. Instead it was the director - Denis Villenueve - who had previously worked with Gyllenhaal in "Enemy".
As I had expected, Prisoners' best facet was its direction, presented through its meaningful cinematography and powerful performances. Similarly to Enemy, Prisoners fulfils its artistic qualities allowing it to be analysed in depth.
I will admit, the film took a while to get going. I wouldn't go as far to say I was ever bored, although, my attention was wearing thin during some parts in the second act. This is a problem a lot of thrillers can face, they spend too much time building tension rather than actually showing the consequences of the character's actions. Avoiding spoiler territory, I must say that when the film did begin its climax it was very satisfying, tied off well with an expertly shot, fast paced car journey.
Prisoners can feel rather repetitive at times, however, what pulled it back from appearing dull were Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal. They both delivered stellar performances, especially in the case of Gyllenhaal. It is incredibly commendable the extend to which he projects his characters through little things such as mannerisms, facial tics and tattoos. Apart from some slightly cringe-inducing child acting near the beginning, Prisoners is worth watching for its performances alone.
Overall, Prisoners is a great watch. Although a little slow at some parts, there are few films that execute suspense quite as well. The ending is satisfying, yet leaves a little to be desired, not being quite as succinct as I was hoping for. Its certainly worth your time.
28 Weeks Later (2007)
Really let me down
Throughout this review I'm going to take a deep dive into spoiler territory, so make sure you watch both 28 days later and 28 weeks later before reading any further.
28 weeks takes place around 6 months after the events of 28 days. Instead of covering a survival story of the infection's initial outburst, 28 weeks instead focuses on the recovery period after all of the "infected" in the UK die from starvation, thus deeming the country safe for the reallocation of British citizens previously evacuated.
Of course, the virus finds a way to crop up again, now being carried by an immune host who proceeds to spread it throughout the area of London now harbouring the relocated British arrivals.
Perhaps 28 weeks most fatal flaw was the fact that it peeked within its first ten minutes. This section of the film was the only part which resonated real tension with me. It was also the only part which felt alike, in terms of direction to 28 days, which is probably why I found it so captivating. I honestly would have preferred a story following the characters at the beginning rather than the protagonist's children. Without getting too off track talking about the characters and plot, lets first discuss the direction in 28 weeks later as a whole.
Before going into my watch of 28 weeks I already knew that the director of 28 days - Danny Boyle - would not be returning to direct the sequel. I've already mentioned in my 28 days review how important Boyle's direction was to that film, and wow, his absence was noticeable. I was hoping that this new director - Juan Carlos Fresnadillo - would use his own style and not try to copy Boyle's in an attempt to please fans of the first film.
I'm not really sure what Fresnadillo was going for. At some points in 28 weeks it felt like he was trying to imitate Boyle's style, most obvious in the opening scene. However, at other points he would bring his own approach to the film's direction. This ends up coming together as a poorly conceived mess, in fact I believe the direction and camera work was, without doubt, the worst part of the film.
It was almost as if there was an attempt to replicate the direction of the first film, without understanding what made it so great in the first place. This lead to a massive over reliance on shaky cam and slow motion which made it incredibly difficult to understand what was going on. This worked in the films favour when it matched the rush and anxiety of the characters, although this was rarely what took place. There was such a lack of personality here making 28 weeks feel much more like some run-of-the-mill Hollywood action Blockbuster compared to the passion project of 28 days. In general, the film just wasn't shot well at all.
Let's discuss the story and characters now, surely this must have been handled better?
No. There were plenty of times in 28 days where the character's decisions felt mindless, however this was nowhere near as often as in 28 weeks. Let's get started then. The first sequence which really irritated me was when the children decided, on a whim, to sneak out of the "safe" zone to hunt for a picture of their mother. Before this scene it wasn't made apparent that they had any severe mental disabilities but they must have to have thought that this would ever be a good idea. What makes this even worse was the fact that the military saw them leave! If they were at all competent they would have just stopped them then and there before they got anywhere near the house. If they had done this then the film would have just ended which proves that all character are just mindless plot devices. After all children will do anything, because children are stupid. At least that's what these films want you to think because the writers are too lazy to actually write a story which makes sense.
This next one is more of just a weird inconsistency I noticed rather than a direct character flaw. In the scene when the helicopter first arrives to evacuate the group from the field we see the helicopter tear away through a large group of the infected. We then see a medium-long shot of their bodies cut in half... still moving! So let me get this straight, these "infected" can be taken down with one bullet to upper body but they can survive being completely ripped apart? Am I missing something here? This seems like a pretty massive error.
The scene which was shot primarily from the perspective of the night-vision sniper rifle is what I want to cover next. I first thought that this was a pretty interesting concept for a scene, for once in this film it actually felt rather tense. However, all this tension was stripped away from me whenever the camera switched to a perspective outside of the sniper scope, where it was revealed to not even be that dark. I'm not saying it was easy to see or anything but it definitely wouldn't be so dark that you would have to rely on a scope to see anything. Once again this just made the characters look even more stupid.
Most of the problems with character come down to the fact that there is a sheer lack of development. The only character that felt developed or interesting for me was the father and his character was barely in the film all things considered. There were no big flaws in the performances, the problems were the fact that they all felt extremely flat and lacking of character. Nothing for the audience to latch onto other than "oh please don't hurt the children" or "no, don't kill him off, he was nice". You've got the acting talents of Jeremy Renner and Idris Elba and you hardly even use them!
Obviously I didn't hate this film, although this review has come out to sound very negative. I really liked some of the concepts, I loved the setting. Although, it may not have been shot all that well, the film still looked quite good, from a purely aesthetical standpoint.
If you loved 28 days, you should watch 28 weeks. However, 28 weeks is nowhere near the same quality of its predecessor. If you didn't like the first then this probably isn't worth your time.
28 Days Later... (2002)
Blew me away
I'm not sure I would classify 28 days later as a "horror film" as this implies that the main aim of the film is to frighten the viewer. Don't get me wrong, 28 days will certainly frighten you, however, it brings so much more to the table than that. It is a densely packed film which will grip you to the very end.
The main story follows our lead protagonist - Cillian Murphy - waking up in a London hospital 28 days after the outbreak of a virus in the UK.
This synopsis will sound familiar to many of you as one year later it would crop up again in the first issue of the Walking Dead graphic novels. I don't know who had this idea first, but nonetheless it doesn't change how effective this way is to open a post apocalyptic setting. It instantly allows the audience to form a close bond with the protagonist as both are new to this world, equally having to adapt to its dangers.
This is executed flawlessly in 28 days. After waking from the hospital, Jim (Cillian Murphy) wanders through London presented in the form of a montage. The shots are primarily wide long-shots allowing the viewer to gauge how much destruction this virus has caused. The camera angles are usually distorted or unnatural, mirroring Jim's helplessness and realisation of his current situation.
In fact the direction throughout the film is, for the most part, pretty stellar. The shots are creative and can easily be analysed. This grants 28 days an extra layer of artistic value, however - where other films fail - the artistic elements of 28 days do not disrupt from the natural flow of the story, making it a far more entertaining watch. I don't want to get into spoiler territory, but by far my favourite aspect of the direction was how it depicted the "infected" which was made even more successful by my favourite aspect of the entire film: The use of audio.
28 day's diegetic and non-diegetic sound work together brilliantly to enhance the film's atmospheric qualities. The soundtrack/score is made up of wildly different pieces of music, however, they are all used at the perfect times to reflect the character's emotions and what the director wants you to feel. Equally, the diegetic sound, or even more importantly, lack of sound, acts as the engine that runs the film. I'm not going to spoil why, but the lack of audio in some scenes was perhaps the most frightening part for me.
Apart from a couple places in the film where the sounds didn't seem quite right, or maybe a little over the top, sound as a whole is handled exceptionally well.
So how do the characters stack up in relation to the other aspects of the film? In general, 28 days was performed very well, with the standout certainly being Cillian Murphy. He gives the protagonist flaws and personality which actually makes him feel like a real person, something which is very rare in "zombie films". Although, the only thing holding this film back in my eyes are some of the decisions the characters make. Of course, you have to take into account their situation and how scared they must be, however, at some points they acted so stupid it just distracted me.
Overall, 28 Days Later is a thrilling, intense experience. A must watch for anyone looking to be frightened, or any film fans in general.
The Lost Boys (1987)
Very funny
The Lost Boys approaches its story with just the right amount tension and stakes to engage you with the characters whilst also operating as a, frankly, hilarious comedy.
The plot is centred around two brothers who have, unknowingly, just moved to an area infested with vampires.
Just reading the synopsis to me sounds wild and, if you also think so, Lost Boys will certainly live up to your expectations. Lost Boy's mixture of expert line delivery and purposeful direction come together tremendously to create an experience which is genuinely funny and quite timeless really.
The standout performances are, surprisingly, from the younger actors, something which is becoming increasingly uncommon in films. Corey Feldman really blew it out of the park and Kiefer Sutherland was also great.
My main complaint with Lost Boys would have to be the camera work and cinematography. There were some shots, especially near the start, where I was just begging them to hold the camera still. It shakes too much in some scenes which is quite irritating. I'm not saying that a, primarily comedy, film's focus should be on their framing however its always appreciated and is one of the easiest elements of film to pick out as flawed.
Tied to the previous point, I noticed some editing mistakes through my watch. These were only slight continuity errors but altogether it made the flow of time between shots seem slightly abnormal.
Sometimes the characters would speak very unnaturally and change their minds on a whim. I think this was unintentional at some points however, regardless it definitely helped to make the film even more entertaining.
The Lost Boys is not at all flawless, yet its undoubtedly worth your time even just for its comedic value alone.
Midsommar (2019)
Absolute waste of time
Midsommar is set around a young woman suffering from tragic loss along with her boyfriend and his friends. They travel to Scandinavia to visit a mid-summer Swedish festival which takes a sinister turn.
Just for some brief context, I would in no way consider myself a fan of horror films. I have seen very few and subsequently, I'm not really that familiar with the genre. So why did I choose to watch Midsommar? Honestly, I just thought it looked interesting.
I went into Midsommar expecting something frightening and disturbing. I can't say it achieved either of these two things for me. Of course, scaring the viewer is not the only aim of a horror film, just like all other films they're supposed to be captivating and entertaining.
But here comes the reason why I thought Midsommar was so bad - it was incredibly boring. Calling a film boring is quite possibly the worst complaint any viewer can have. Films that are objectively bad can still be entertaining, you can laugh at their shortcomings and errors. However, this is impossible to do with Midsommar because of how seriously it takes itself and also the fact that so little happens.
Midsommar's pacing and run time is by far its biggest flaw. It presents itself in a sort of art-house format, the cinematography is slow yet meaningful. Midsommar slowly unravels its narrative which is paralleled by its camera movement. There's lots of wide shots aiming to fit as much in a frame as possible and, in general, colour is used exceptionally well to separate objects within the frame to make them more obvious focal points for the viewer. Overall, cinematography is by far Midsommar's best attribute. It knows when and when not to cut or pan an already existing shot. This is all great stuff and shows talented direction. Although, in my opinion the intentionally artistic shots can sometimes conflict with the events on screen and slow down the pacing even further making it quite a taxing experience. Something I noticed, you'll have to check the film out for yourself to understand, but it almost feels like there were two inciting incidents which just makes the films dull pacing even more apparent.
I didn't really want to admit this, it took me 4 different sittings to actually finish this film. There were parts in the midway point where it felt like literally nothing was happening. Most films would use this downtime to build tension or develop characters. I can tell that is clearly what Midsommar was attempting, however one of the reasons why this was so unsuccessful was because I couldn't at all connect with any of the characters. There were moments in the film where I just wasn't able to understand their moronic decisions. You could make the excuse that the reason they were so stupid was because they were constantly experiencing a drug trip however this doesn't affect any other aspects of their character so I struggle to believe this. Overall, this just kept taking me out of the film's world.
For the most part the performances were quite good, particularly from Florence Pugh however I do believe she was a little too melodramatic in parts. The others were competent but nothing special.
A lot of people love this film, I can understand their reasons for this, it really is a film designed for a certain type of film watcher, the cinematography is great and it has some engaging concepts. But I just don't think this is worth your time, especially if you're not a fan of the horror genre in general. If you think it looks interesting I won't stop you from watching it, just be ready to be disappointed and very, very bored.
Enemy (2013)
A real mind explosion
After lots of thinking, I've decided not to include spoilers in this review. For me, the most entertaining aspect of Enemy was making my own interpretations, and I think it would be unfair to strip this ability from anyone else through the reading of my ideas. Enemy truly is a film best watched with an open mind and should be treated more as a piece of art rather than a film.
The plot of enemy revolves around Jake Gyllenhaal's character working as a history teacher. He spots an exact look-alike of himself in a movie and then attempts to find him in reality.
The visuals of Enemy are by far it's most appreciated aspect. The lighting, colouration, cinematography and setting all work in harmony to reflect the themes on screen and the internal struggles of the main protagonist. There is so much to analyse when it comes to visuals, I had a lot of fun trying to understand the meaning of the film as I watched.
In terms of the main protagonist, Jake Gyllenhaal is honestly starting to become one of my favourite actors. He seems to always deliver a stellar performance and this is not absent in Enemy. His performance was doubled in a literal sense due to the fact of him having to play two characters in the film conversing in the same scene multiple times, making his acting even more commendable.
Another terrific aspect of Enemy is the editing. Many films these days seem to forget about editing as a way to convey meaning, usually resulting in static shot reverse shot. However, Enemy's mixture of fluid editing and knowing when and when not to cut, paired with it's cinematography, propels the meaning you can derive from the film even further.
So what are the negatives? Through my solo watch of the film I didn't pick up on anything too noticeable. I think that the most common complaint people will have for enemy is that they find it too slow paced or repetitive and I can see where they're coming from. However whenever I thought the pacing was turned down a little bit too low it just gave me more room to make my own interpretations of the film.
Obviously this isn't a film for everyone, I'm sure many people will find it disturbing however this doesn't change the fact that I highly recommend everyone to watch Enemy. It's very under appreciated and not enough people know about so give it a watch if you have the time.
Holes (2003)
Adolescent Shawshank Redemption
I'll keep this review short and simple. Holes is an adventure/drama set around a group of teenagers forced to dig holes (as opposed to serving time in prison) in search for hidden treasure from the area's past.
The film Holes is an adaptation of the book, with the same title. Its been a very long time since I've read the book so I can't remember how faithfully the source material is converted. Although, when judging Holes solely on the basis of it as a film it holds up very well and is an all-round enjoyable experience.
It clearly drew much of its inspiration from The Shawshank Redemption, containing many of the main story beats. Two characters sharing a close bond in the prison setting, a new young character arriving on the scene after the midway point of the film, one character escaping from the prison setting first whilst the other fears that they may have died, the two characters reuniting again to later share a prosperous, happy future together. The similarities are clearly apparent however they do not at all subtract from the viewing experience. If you're going to take heavy inspiration from a film, there are few better to take from than Shawshank.
This film is far better than it needs to be. The performances, especially from the adult actors, were very entertaining. The film flows well and never feels dull. For a film perceived as targeted towards children it really holds up for all ages which is highly commendable.
I don't see many errors that are too noticeable, of course it's no masterpiece, perhaps the cinematography is a little bland and Shia LaBeouf's character can be a little irritating. He's quite a pushover and I would have liked his character to have developed more by the end.
Overall, Holes accomplishes what it sets out to do, presenting a captivating lighthearted prison drama.
Taxi Driver (1976)
An absolute cinematic masterpiece
I strongly urge anyone to watch this film before reading this review. Taxi Driver is best watched with an open mind with no prior knowledge of its events. This was the way I first watched Taxi Driver, I was just browsing films, thought it looked interesting and gave it a go. Before this I had heard about it but knew nothing other than its critical acclaim. Unknowingly I had discovered what I now view to be the best film I have ever seen. Film is an artform just like any other medium, Taxi Driver captures this perfectly whilst also forming one of the most captivating stories ever.
"I first saw her at Palantine Campaign headquarters at 63rd and Broadway. She was wearing a white dress. She appeared like an angel. Out of this filthy mess, she is alone. They... cannot... touch... her."
The dialogue of Taxi Driver is simply sublime, it evokes a stream of consciousness style, it manages to flow and sound natural.
"The days go on and on... they don't end. All my life needed was a sense of someplace to go. I don't believe that one should devote his life to morbid self-attention, I believe that one should become a person like other people."
Perhaps the most difficult part of filmmaking is nailing down the dialogue, it has to fit the themes of the film and sound realistic. In my eyes there has never been a film to accomplish this to a higher level. Taxi Driver's dialogue resonates dread and is delivered so well that the meaning is only enhanced further.
In terms of the characters, Travis Bickle has be one of the greatest ever written. His dream (in a literal sense) to wipe the streets clean of "filth" is a goal I think anyone can relate to - he wants to be a hero, however in contradiction carries out his heroic acts through violence - exactly the thing he wants to purge.
"He's a prophet... he's a prophet and a pusher, partly truth, partly fiction. A walking contradiction"
He is destined to be forever alone, permanently stuck. His occupation as a taxi driver mirrors his internal struggles, he aims to remove the filth off the streets yet continues to ferry them around the city - a contradiction. In fact the most prevalent theme of the film is that of contradiction which is presented partly through binary oppositions. You've got night and day, Taxi Driver acts as two films which are divided by their lighting, cinematography and setting. In the night, the shots are far more compact, trapping the audience within the taxi. The pure darkness of the night is always present, seeming endless, just like the city, Travis is trapped. However, is he really trapped in the city? Possibly the city is just a representation of his mind, he is detached from the world, he has no relationships (never seeing his parents, having to write to them). The scenes of day and night act as polar opposites representing the man Travis wishes to be and the man he is. This way of viewing the film would also help to explain the ending. The ending is false, it never made any sense to me - I always believed Travis died in his attempt to rescue Iris and the ending is just some sort of dream sequence. Possibly the ending is just the ending that Travis thinks he deserves - he views himself as some kind of martyr as if his murders have actually changed anything.
In contrast the scenes set in the day are composed far more heavily with the use of wide angle long shots presenting the city's wide expanse. These scenes are almost completely absent of Travis' narration, he is talking to people and thus he is no longer alone. The conversations in this setting are far more representative of reality, for me they were always similar to the way old sit-coms were shot, far more static and realistic. In this setting Travis meets Betsy, who he describes as an "angel". If Betsy is an angel what does that make Travis?
Travis later corrupts his only present relationship in the setting of the night. He loses virtually everything, this is the turning point where Travis discovers what he perceives to be his role in this "filthy world".
I have always loved the scene where Travis attempts to murder Palantine but decides not too, it gave his character an extra layer of depth.
He has access to a vehicle, so theoretically he could escape however he has no self control, no free will, he is a pawn, describing himself as "God's lonely man" - he's trapped in his occupation.
"You get a job, you become the job".
His history as a Vietnam veteran plagued him internally, he uses his excess fear from a life of war to paint reality in a miserable shade of violence. He is alone, viewing himself as a hero amongst men.
Veering away from character examination, Taxi Driver also succeeds through its soundtrack. The music behind Taxi driver is the perfect fit to the film's themes and is a joy to listen to. Once again its another aspect of the film handled to perfection thus amplifying all of the other elements.
To conclude this review, as I have already mentioned Taxi Driver is a true masterpiece and should be watched by absolutely anyone who has any interest in film, it is endlessly inspiring and consequentially it receives the highest rating and applause I can give to a film.
Time (2021)
Waste of Potential
Time is a thriller/drama 3 part series depicting a prison inmate and prison guard's experiences in the prison setting.
Let me get this started by saying my opinion on "Time" is drastically different to the general public's. I honestly can't understand how this series is getting such critical acclaim. However, make sure to watch it for yourself before reading this review to gauge your own opinion, I will be exploring spoiler territory so read at your own risk.
I watched "Time" across a span of three days (one episode a night) and in my experience each episode dropped in quality from the previous. I must say that I loved the first episode. The levels of suspense and tension were handled expertly. It really gave this series some great foundations which, unsurprisingly gave me high hopes for the following two parts.
When watching the second the problems began to sprout up, it was paced far slower than the previous although overall it was still an entertaining watch. It was only when I watched the final part where the cracks began to show and the entire series utterly fell apart.
I have to admit that my expectations were rather high for this finale, primarily due to the quality of the previous two parts. I was expecting an ending to really throw me off my seat, but instead I watched one of the most predictable, boring resolutions possible. Even before I watched the episode I had the sneaking feeling something was going to collapse - by the end of the second part there was a ridiculous number of character arcs and mini-stories within the main stories which would have to be tied up well for a satisfying conclusion. And this is where I think "Time's" biggest problem lies, and that problem is that they didn't have enough time. This shouldn't have been a 3 part series. The writers attempted far too much for their limited (3 hours) worth of screen time. I think a 5 or 6 part series would be far more suitable - allowing enough time to flesh out the character relationships to make the ending far more powerful.
This is the second problem - the ending has no weight because we know far too little about the character's. This issue is most apparent with the death of Mark's (Sean Bean) dad. I simply didn't care as we knew nothing about this character or his relationship with Mark. So much of the final episode is spent on this funeral and the fact that it had no emotional weight whatsoever clearly shows how much time was wasted.
Don't let me get started on part 3's final scene, I was absolutely astounded by how awful it was. When he reveals what he wrote in his letter to the woman I was getting ready for some huge emotional pay off to round off the ending. Instead we were delivered something so comical that at the time I couldn't believe my eyes. "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry". Seriously! He's an English teacher and this is the best he could come up with. In full honesty I wasn't sure if I was supposed to laugh here or not - a terrible moment rounding off a terrible ending.
Overall, it saddens me to admit that Time was full of wasted potential. I would not recommend Time to anyone for any other reason than to discuss all its shortcomings and laugh at it. This shouldn't have been called Time, it should have been called a Waste of Time.
21 (2008)
Terrible Directing
I'm going to jump straight to the point for this one because I don't think this film is worth much of mine or your time. 21 is a heist film which presents the story of an MIT blackjack team which make regular trips to Vegas with a strategy they use to exploit the casinos through their advanced knowledge of maths.
I finished watching 21 and the first thing that came to mind was how much they wasted such a high potential concept. To put it simply, if I were to explain to someone how not to direct a film, I would tell them to watch 21.
You can pick apart this film until there is nothing left which is really unfortunate because 21 isn't at all boring. But throughout my watch I struggled to truly enjoy my time because of the constant reminders of amateur film making. Almost all of the problems would have been fixed if they had a more talented director at the helm.
The performances are good enough, nothing special. My favourite aspect of the film was Kevin Spacey's character and its not even close.
The pacing is really jarring in some areas of the film, character motivations can change in an instant with almost no build-up.
I don't want to enter spoiler territory but I must say that I hated the ending. Tonally, It contrasted massive with the rest of the film leaving a sour taste.
I think a 4 is just about right for 21, one of the only positives is that it certainly wasn't dull. Is it worth a watch? No.
The Hunger Games (2012)
Pleasantly Surprised
After watching "The Hunger Games" I checked on my IMDb to see what I rated it last time. I saw 6/10. I'm beginning to think that was too low, I'm debating whether to change it to 7/10 right now. You'll see what I decided on.
So now I'm thinking, 7/10 does this deserve a 7 and honestly I think it does. I usually reserve 7s for films I properly enjoy and use 6s as placeholders for films which I don't think are bad, just not worth a higher rating. But I must say that I was pleasantly surprised on my re watch of The Hunger Games.
I was a big fan of the book series when I was younger and I remember watching all of the films as they came out. I always had the viewpoint that the first film was the worst - yet I strongly disagree with that now. I assume that shows my growing maturity as a film watcher because I would say that "The Hunger Games" has the best direction of the 4.
I admire the lengths this film went to to create a thrilling post-apocalyptic society. It has plenty of flaws, but we'll get to those later, for now let's focus on the positives.
The use of sound first sticks out to me, its probably my favourite aspect. Knowing when and when not to use audio is a hard task and I think The Hunger Games handles this to a high standard. The best example I can think of is at the beginning of the games. It would have been much easier for them to just cue an action score, yet instead they use silence to convey fear paired with the running down of a clock creating gripping anticipation.
I really enjoyed when the film got slightly more experimental. The time reversal of Katniss's home being destroyed after her father died symbolising the metaphorical destruction of their livelihood. The slowly unwinding background of the protagonists. The conflicting styles of camera movement in District 12 compared to the Capitol. All of these aspects were handled very well which makes the film stand out over other Teen post-apocalypse films like the terrible Divergent series.
So how was the acting? I'm not great at analysing performances, but overall I have to see that almost everyone in the film put on a decent show. The obvious standouts were Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks. They help to tie the film together in situations where weaker actors would have torn it apart. My favourite performance was definitely from Stanley Tucci, he brought a certain vibrance and entertainment to the role making him very captivating to watch.
Now, onto my biggest negative on the film - time management. I don't think this film is paced very well. I always find myself enjoying it far more when they are not in the games. It almost feels like two films, you've got the thoroughly entertaining first half where you're learning all about this complex society and then... Bang! You get thrown into a fight to the death action film. I don't think "action" is the right word though, more like "running and hiding from people". There isn't really any action present apart from the very beginning of the games and the very end. This is what I believe to be the slowest part of the film - they build up to it so much and it's quite a let down.
One of the reasons why the actual games are so lacking of captivation is the fact that none of the tributes are developed. I know you can't possibly develop 24 actors in less than an hour of screen time prior to their entry of the games. But they could have at least attempted to for those in District 1 and 2, especially Alexander Ludwig's character (Cato). They all get killed off and the film expects us to care but I don't know anything about these people! At the very end Cato starts talking to himself before he dies about his moral situation, it would have been great to learn more about that. This film is already jam-packed but I'm sure they could trim it to fit in more necessary scenes.
My view of "The Hunger Games" has ended out sounding quite negative but I must state that I do really enjoy this film. It's far from perfect but I do recommend a watch.
Oblivion (2013)
A Film Overshadowed by its Own Soundtrack
I've got a strange relationship with Oblivion. I have watched it at least 5 times so I know it quite well. Its the sort of film I always get excited to re watch again but each time I do so it becomes less entertaining and more underwhelming. I'm not sure what keeps bringing me back to this film - perhaps its the score. I listen to it quite often and it is probably Oblivion's best feature which tells you everything you need to know about the quality of the rest of the film.
Lets start with the positives (this shouldn't take too long). Overall, the action was handled well. Straying away from fast cut action was a breath of fresh air and the use of the sequence shots tracking the drones was quite appealing to the eye.
To put it simply, Oblivion is a nice looking film. The cinematography is of a higher quality to most action films however it left nothing to analyse and was quite hollow - the shots looked good just to look good - nothing was conveyed.
How about the negatives? Tom Cruise and Olga Kurylenko were pretty awful. Cruise is just playing your average action hero - his only noticeable character trait is that he wants to escape the conflict and lead a simpler, more natural life. Other than that he was just an exposition dumper and driver for the plot. Olga put on a terrible performance that made me question if she was just hired for her looks, she brought nothing to her role and was just reliant on Tom Cruise's character the whole film. This has got to be the only film featuring Morgan Freeman that I forget features Morgan Freeman. His performance isn't bad but the script is. He had nothing to work with, if you can get Morgan Freeman in your film give him something useful to do - what a waste.
The film begins with a massive exposition dump from Tom Cruise describing what happened to the world and their jobs in restoring what's left. The thing that irritates me about this is the fact that they literally recite this exposition all over again after Cruise rescues Olga's character. So what was the point? You just wasted the first few minutes of your film. This does seem like the sort of thing added in post because the studios thought that the audience would be too stupid to understand the film's rather simple premise.
I was displeased by the antagonist. The drones were the face of the enemy and they got very repetitive over time. The reveal of the villain just being a big floating pyramid was uninspired and bland.
So is this film worth watching? I'm struggling to answer this question because I wouldn't call this a bad film. I would say if you really enjoy Sci - Fi action Oblivion will be great fun for you. If you're looking for anything more complex I can't say you'll be too impressed. Looking at it, 6/10 does seem rather generous. But when I think of Oblivion I think 6/10. Nothing more, nothing less.
El laberinto del fauno (2006)
An Endless Labyrinth of Analysation
I found Pan's Labyrinth to be a transcending experience which was thoroughly captivating throughout. The cinematography was truly remarkable, and the film has an endless number of layers allowing it to be analysed to death. I was completely and utterly gripped by the concept and its execution which is primarily thanks to Del Toro's unending imagination and willingness to take a darker step into the fantasy realm.
What I found to be most distinctive was the fluid incorporation of themes and how they were presented through visual metaphors, it's a delight re watching Pan as there is so much to be looking out for. Just some quick examples - The theme of time, immortality, childbirth, the constant re incorporation of the rule of 3s and so many more! Capped off by a brilliant score, I find it very hard to understand the perspective of someone who is not as entranced by the film like myself. Just talking about it is making me want to watch it again right now and that is a sign of exquisite filmmaking.
Overall, the performances were great. I would have to say that my favourite character is probably Vidal, but I keep flipping between him and the faun. Ofelia's actor (Ivana Baquero) was incredible for a child actor - one of the best I have ever seen.
Pan's Labyrinth falls into the genre of dark fantasy however also shares traits from the horror and action genres. The film does not focus on action however whenever it is on screen it is handled very well.
As a young spectator Pan's Labyrinth certainly appeals to me as it was so obviously treated with great care throughout its production which allowing the film to be analysed in great depth. I struggle to say that about most films I watch so in this example it is one of the highest compliments I can give.
Pan's Labyrinth is a pleasure to watch and I highly recommend anyone who enjoys analysing film to watch it- you will not be disappointed.
The Inbetweeners 2 (2014)
Does not translate well to film
The reason I am choosing to review "The Inbetweeners 2" over the first film is because I believe that they share the same problems yet the sequel is much worse in almost every way.
To make it completely clear I do not hate this film, I don't know if I would even say that I dislike it, it is just terrible. Sure, it will entertain you and it certainly won't bore you yet it is nothing special. It is of a completely separate - lower - quality to the television series which is so beloved for it's timeless comedy. So, lets get into the reasons why I regard this film as pretty awful.
The camera work is incredibly static, constant shot reverse shot lacking originality does not make for good filmmaking. They can get away with this on television but on the bigger screen it just looks amateur and vapid. This links with the fact that everyone behind this film was clearly out of their depth in terms of the production process. Honestly, they should just stick to short episode formatting as that's what their best at. If you're going to attempt making a film don't rely on staff who are not experienced in that region as it will only end with shoddy craftmanship.
The Inbetweeners 2 is not funny. Over 80% of the humour is gross-out which becomes so tiring. They are lacking the relatability of the school environment which provided a lot of laughs for me. In return, I only laughed once throughout the entire showcase if that's of any interest.
Alright, so let's talk about some of the characters. My favourite character in the television series has always been Neil but sadly he is probably my least favourite in this film. He is appalling, I'm not sure if its the actor's performance, the script or the direction but his comedic timing is terrible and it really threw me out whenever he was attempting humour. I don't like Simon and I never have, I don't think he fits in with the others and he just seems awkward all of the time which is not fun to watch. Will is the only likable character in my eyes and this is because Simon Bird looks by far the most confident on a film set. I have not got much to say about Jay's character, he was slightly better here than he was in the first film.
It's worth a watch if you are an Inbetweeners fan but do not expect a good film because you will leave emptyhanded apart from all of that wasted time.